Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH ARABIA

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Yemenis have been deported from South Arabia, and why.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): Four hundred and sixty-two during 1965 and 330 up to 31st October this year, for various criminal acts and other offences against the law.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the Government continue to try to ensure that birds of passage from the Yemen do not disturb the peace of Aden? As the Yemen is the key to the security of Aden, will the Government consider raising in the Security Council as a threat to peace the U.A.R.'s repudiation of its engagement to quit the Yemen?

Mr. Brown: The second suggestion would not be a useful thing to do at the moment. As for the first, there is another Question about what we are doing.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the arrangements to be made for the security and territorial integrity of South Arabia after independence.

Mr. George Brown: When South Arabia becomes independent, it will, like every other independent country, be entitled to the protection of the United Nations Charter.
In the meantime, we are giving the Government of the Federation of South Arabia substantial amounts of additional financial aid to strengthen their armed forces in readiness for independence.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the Government go further than that and give an undertaking that it is not their policy to see that both ends of the Red Sea are dominated by the U.A.R. backed by the U.S.S.R.? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House that air and other assistance will be given to South Arabia to maintain its independence?

Mr. Brown: No, I do not think so. What we are doing and what we are to do after independence and what should be done is to enable these people to build up their own defence forces.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the key to the security of South Arabia is that it should have an air force which it is capable of operating itself? Is he not aware that it is almost impossible to create that before 1968, which is the date the Government have given for withdrawal? Will he therefore extend the date, at any rate from the point of view of keeping a training mission there?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. It is quite right—and should be defended—that independence in cases like this should come as quickly as can be properly arranged. We think that 1968 is the right date for independence and that we should not encourage any ideas that it will be changed. In the meantime, it is for us to help all we can so that these people can look after themselves thereafter. The aid which we are giving is very substantial, much more than we have hitherto been giving, to help them to build up their forces, which will include an air component, to be as large as they would be able to sustain.

Mr. Sandys: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that between now and 1968 it is totally impossible for the Federation to build up armed forces which would then be in a position to resist Egyptian attack? Can he tell us whether any foreign Governments have expressed anxiety to Her Majesty's Government about the dangerous consequences of Britain's rapid withdrawal?

Mr. Brown: We get far more pressures to end what is regarded as evidence of our colonialism than we do the other way round. I happen to disagree very strongly with the right hon. Member for


Streatham (Mr. Sandys) about this. I think that we should encourage people to prepare themselves for independence and not seek to discourage them from it.

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his plans for associating the United Nations with South Arabia's progress towards independence in 1968.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the constitutional arrangements for the independence of the South Arabian Federation in 1968.

Mr. George Brown: We are trying to reach agreement on the composition of a United Nations mission to South Arabia. We hope that this mission will help us to work out with all concerned constitutional arrangements for bringing South Arabia to independence by 1968.

Mr. Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer and hope that he will pursue this question. Would he not agree that a U.N. presence, perhaps consisting of neutral Arab nations such as the Lebanon and the Sudan, would have a genuine benefit both in spotlighting terrorism in Aden Colony and making this an international question, leading to a peaceful solution in 1968?

Mr. Brown: Without commenting on what the membership might be, I have been discussing it with the U.N. when I was there. I have seen my noble Friend, Lord Caradon, very recently and it has been discussed with member nations of the Committee of 24. Everyone is aware of my anxiety that an acceptable membership should be arrived at as quickly as possible.

Mr. Stratton Mills: While fully recognising the difficulty, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say with whom the United Nations will negotiate over Aden?

Mr. Brown: For the moment, they are negotiating with us.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. GERALD BROOKE

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further representations have been made to the Russian authorities about the severe restrictions on Gerald Brooke.

Mr. George Brown: I raised the question of Mr. Brooke's continued imprisonment when I talked to Mr. Gromyko in New York on 8th October. I have not yet received a reply.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in this country consider that, whether Brooke was guilty or not, the manner in which the Russians are placing restrictions on him is most unpleasant? When he visits Moscow, will he raise this matter again with the Russian authorities?

Mr. Brown: I have left the Russian authorities in no doubt about my view on this subject and my hon. Friend may assume that I will take every opportunity to raise it.

Sir R. Cary: Can a more comprehensive statement be made on this tragic case even before the right hon. Gentleman goes to Moscow on 27th November? There is a thread of calculated cruelty running through the detention of Gerald Brooke about which the House ought not to remain unconcerned.

Mr. Brown: That is absolutely right, and I hope that the Russian authorities will take note of what has been said. The hon. Gentleman may assume that I will lose no opportunity of pressing it home.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States Government have been informed of the concern felt in Great Britain at a possible United States invasion of North Vietnam.

Mr. Heifer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what response he has received from the United States of America and the Soviet Union to his proposal for a peaceful settlement in Vietnam; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent official discussions with President Johnson and Mr. Gromyko about war and peace in Vietnam.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the United States Government to his proposal that there should be free elections in North and South Vietnam within a period of two years.

Mr. George Brown: As the House knows, many of these Questions were the subject of discussions which I recently held in the United States with President Johnson, Mr. Rusk, Mr. Gromyko and others and also with Mr. Pearson and Mr. Martin in Ottawa.
As the House has now heard, I shall very soon be visiting Moscow to see Mr. Gromyko again. In all this, my main concern is to see what I can do to help bring about in the first place an end to the bloodshed and then help promote a solution in Vietnam. I am sure that the House will understand if I ask permission to avoid further comment at this stage, since to do so might well prejudice the interests we all have in mind.

Mr. Winnick: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the tone of that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that the Americans seem hell-bent on escalating the war in Vietnam? Can the Foreign Secretary say that in his negotiations about this matter he will not fall over backwards to take one particular side in the civil war now taking place in that country?

Mr. Brown: I certainly have no intention of imitating my hon. Friend in doing exactly what he has just described. I do not agree with the opening part of his question but it was exactly that kind of comment which I thought it would be unwise to make before I go to Moscow.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I respect the wish of the Foreign Secretary not to comment on matters that he will be negotiating or discussing in Moscow, but would he not agree that comments of the kind that we have just heard—unfair and one-sided—attacking the United

States coming from the British House of Commons can do nothing but harm?

Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that the United States has already invaded the southern part of Vietnam and is it not therefore within the range of possibility that she might invade the northern part? Would my right hon. Friend keep that in mind? Can he say if he has made any representations to the United States about this possibility?

Mr. Brown: May I invite my hon. Friends to bear in mind that what is most needed here is not words that seem agreeable to us, whether they are right or wrong, but getting an end to the bloodshed in Vietnam?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: While congratulating the Foreign Secretary on his peace initiative, may I ask whether he thinks that it would now be useful for him to send a British mission to Hanoi, to see if he can secure co-operation there with his aims?

Mr. Brown: I think that I had better be allowed to have my visit to Moscow first.

Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend cannot stop criticism in relation to this matter, because it concerns the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I am asking a question. Would he not agree that while we are associated with American action, in the way we are at present, his chances of success are not very great?

Mr. Brown: I do not agree. I do not think that my hon. Friend could be very much more wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the measures recently taken by Spain against the constitutional position of Gibraltar, its citizens, industries and amenities; and what steps he has taken during the last two months to protect Gibraltar and its integrity in relation to Great Britain and the British Commonwealth.

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what


representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Spanish Government concerning the continuing restrictions imposed on movement along the boundary with Gibraltar.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the Spanish threat to Gibraltar.

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what information he has about changes in the restrictions imposed by Spain on the free movement of persons and goods between Gibraltar and Spain, by way of increase or reduction, respectively;

(2) what progress Her Majesty's Government have made in their talks with the Spanish Government on the future of Gibraltar.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about his discussions with the Spanish Government on Gibraltar.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Spanish relations with regard to Gibraltar.

Mr. George Brown: There is nothing I can yet add to the full statement and answers to Questions which I made on 31st October. The position was further very fully set out in the White Paper which I laid before the House on 3rd November, and arrangements have been made, I understand, for a debate later this week when all these matters can be gone into in some detail.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that his Answer does not carry the matter any further? Can he say what steps he has taken, or will take, to enable him to make sure that he will preserve the integrity of the British Commonwealth as a peace-making instrument in the case of Gibraltar?

Mr. Brown: What we have proposed to do is the right course to take. I am aware that there are some different views about this. These can be argued and debated in the debate on Thursday, and I am sure that it would be better done then rather than by way of question and answer today.

Mr. Jackson: Would the Foreign Secretary agree, with regard to the restrictions on the frontier, that one essential pre-condition for the reference of this case to the International Court would be that there should be no further escalation of restrictions, otherwise any kind of agreement or settlement in the International Court would be impossible?

Mr. Brown: I am pretty certain that the continuation of the kind of efforts which have been made in the past by Spain not only constitute an unfriendly act but would also, I would have thought, very adversely affect any case that Spain will put to the International Court.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the statement he has made on behalf of the Government, although somewhat belated, has nevertheless had the overwhelming support of world opinion in that we have shown the confidence that we have in international justice, and at the same time have given a sound guarantee to the people of Gibraltar, for which they, too, are very grateful?

Mr. Brown: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

Sir F. Bennett: Two of my Questions are being answered together, and perhaps I may be forgiven if I ask two supplementary questions. One refers to a requested answer from the Foreign Secretary, which has not yet been given, dealing with what are the restrictions which have been brought into force. It is not good enough——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are no special privileges. There must be a question.

Sir F. Bennett: Will the Foreign Secretary at least answer my Question, No. 18? With regard to No. 30, is he really determined, if this matter does go to the International Court and if by any mischance the verdict should go against us, to hand over the people of Gibraltar to Spain, without consulting them as to their wishes?

Mr. Brown: To deal with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is obviously incompatible to say that


one is willing to refer the matter to the International Court and then to lay down the verdict which one would accept. On the first part of the question, there has been only one increase since the early part of this year and that was the recent down-grading of the Customs post at La Linea.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon Gentleman's reply mean that if the verdict goes against us he would be prepared to hand over Gibraltar to Spain, regardless of the wishes of its inhabitants? Is not that dealing with a free people as if they were a piece of property, rather like old-fashioned colonialism?

Mr. Brown: I must say that that question, corning from a distinguished lawyer, as well as a Privy Councillor, does make me wonder. That is not the sort of question that one should deal with, in those terms, before going to a court of any kind, let alone the International Court.

Mr. Wall: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is a feeling in Gibraltar that they are taking the kicks for what is basically a quarrel between London and Madrid? Can he assure the House that, if the matter does go to the International Court, he will make every effort to see that the present blockade is lifted while the matter is being considered, because it may well take two years?

Mr. Brown: I shall certainly do the latter in any case. As to taking it to the International Court, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite must make up their minds whether they are in favour of the rule of law in the world. Speaking for myself, I am. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may like to consult the view broadcast by the Deputy Chief Minister of Gibraltar in early October, to his own people, in which he said that he would welcome the action of Her Majesty's Government in putting the sovereignty of Gibraltar to the test. That is what we are doing.

Mr. Maclennan: Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that he will make available, prior to the debate on Thursday, the preliminary draft of the special agreement for the reference of the legal issues to the International Court?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I said the other day that I regretted that I could not do that, unless by Thursday we have reached agreement with the Spaniards on it. We have proposed terms of reference and they will have to be agreed between us. It would be discourteous and wrong to publish them in advance.

Lord Balniel: How long is the Foreign Secretary going to wait before he receives an answer from the Spanish Government following our request that the matter should be referred to the International Court? In the event of Spain refusing this request, is it his intention to continue negotiations with the Spanish Government?

Mr. Brown: I cannot answer the second, hypothetical question. I would consider it if and when it arises. As to the first question, it is still best to go on negotiating rather than to get into the kind of situation hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to want.

Oral Answers to Questions — OUTER SPACE (DRAFT TREATY)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made towards a treaty for the control of outer space activities and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mrs. Eirene White): I have every hope that before long agreement may be reached on a draft treaty concerning the exploration and use of outer space including the Moon and other celestial bodies.
The next discussion of the draft treaty will be by the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly later in the present session.

Mr. Marten: Are the Russians still insisting on being granted tracking facilities throughout the whole world? Will the hon. Lady's right hon. Friend raise this matter on his visit to Moscow?

Mrs. White: Discussions are going on on various points in the draft treaty and it would not be helpful to discuss any particular one now.

Mr. Hogg: I hope that the hon. Lady will give us this assurance. Since the traditional concepts of international law on this subject are based on the hypothesis


of a flat earth, I hope that the draft treaty will be based upon the Copernican system.

Mrs. White: I think that there is one thing at least which will appeal to hon. Members opposite. That is what has already been agreed by the sub-committee—the provision that celestial bodies in outer space shall not be subject to any claim of sovereignty.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATLANTIC NUCLEAR FORCE

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about progress towards an Atlantic Nuclear Force.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. George Thomson): Discussions on nuclear arrangements within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are proceeding amongst members of the Alliance.

Mr. Marten: Has the Atlantic Nuclear Force been generally dropped in favour of consultations on the Mac-Namara basis and did the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend raise this matter with the West Germans on his recent visit there?

Mr. Thomson: Her Majesty's Government's proposals for an Atlantic Nuclear Force remain for consideration, but the immediate issue is to create machinery by which the non-nuclear members of N.A.T.O. can be more closely associated with nuclear planning policy. During his visit to Bonn, my right hon. Friend discussed many subjects with the Federal German Government, including problems of disarmament.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is this a polite way of saying that the Atlantic Nuclear Force is dead?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. The answer means exactly what I said.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it proposed to place the four Polaris nuclear submarines in an Atlantic Nuclear Force?

Mr. Thomson: I think that the proposals involved in the Atlantic Nuclear Force are well known to the House. They still remain for consideration. However, I think that my hon. Friend would agree

that the urgent matter is to get ahead with the present nuclear planning arrangements within N.A.T.O.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR TESTS (DETECTION)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent discussions between British and Soviet officials on advances in the methods of detecting underground nuclear tests by seismological techniques.

Mr. George Brown: These talks were directed to establishing a clear understanding of the exact stage that has been reached in the use of seismic techniques in the Soviet Union and the West. I followed up these talks in Washington and we now hope to proceed to further talks with the Russians and our American allies on this subject.

Mr. Blaker: Now that these talks have taken place, is it still the view of the Government that any treaty to ban underground nuclear tests must include some provision for on-site inspection?

Mr. Brown: This is obviously one of the questions which arise out of the talks and the exchanges which are now going on. I think that we had better await the outcome of the tripartite talks.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussion he has had with the Danish Government on Denmark's proposed entry to the Common Market.

Mr. George Brown: The Danish Prime Minister called on me on 18th October. Our discussion of the international situation, which was of course confidential, naturally covered, amongst other questions, the general problem of European economic integration.

Mr. Shin well: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he and members of his staff, including junior Ministers, have had with foreign Ministers and officials on the subject of British entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. George Brown: The most recent occasions have been the Western European Union meeting in Paris at the end of September, my visit to Bonn last week and the European Free Trade Association Ministerial meeting in Lisbon at the end of October.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to give the House any details of the nature of the discussions and consultations? For example, have representations been made to him by some of his foreign relations—speaking in a political sense—that the conditions on which Britain enters the Common Market must be that we accept the Treaty of Rome and all its implications?

Mr. Brown: Obviously the consultations which we have been having are confidential, and I cannot disclose what went on there. But our position has always been made plain. Certain problems exist, and satisfactory arrangements must be made to meet them if we are to consider the question of entry into the Market. My right hon. Friend said the other day that he will be making a statement fairly soon on the subject, and I suggest that we wait for that.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the anti-Common Market lobby led by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) registered with his Whips as one of the officially approved dissident groups?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDONESIA (RELATIONS)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on British-Indonesian relations, in the light of the Sultan of Jogjakarta's visit to London.

Mrs. Eirene White: The visit of the Sultan of Jogjakarta and Indonesian Ministers to London was proof of the rapid improvement in Anglo-Indonesian relations, and enabled us to hear at first hand Indonesia's plans for restoring the economy. A number of British firms are now examining with the Indonesian Government how their former links with that country could be renewed.
The improvement in relations has been further marked by the arrival of an

Indonesian Ambassador in London after an interval of three years.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware that much of the recent famine in the outer Indonesian islands arises not from the overall shortage of rice but rather from the lack of transport to get rice inland? Is there not a case for linking such help as we give to Indonesia to under-used capacity in Britain—for example, motor vehicles at Bathgate?

Mrs. White: As my hon. Friend knows, Her Majesty's Government provided £1 million worth of emergency aid. Any practical suggestions which he has to make about the use of it will, of course, be carefully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN DETAINEES (INQUIRY)

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what inquiries he has made into the incidents referred to in the Report on Aden submitted to him by Amnesty International; and with what result.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the representations made to him by Amnesty International regarding the treatment of detainees in Aden prison.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from the Swedish section of Amnesty International about the methods used by British servicemen against prisoners in Aden; and what action he intends to take.

Mr. Handing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he has given to the special investigator he is sending to Aden to investigate allegations of maltreatment of political prisoners; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his investigation into the treatment of detainees in Aden.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the result of his inquiry into the allegations made against British personnel in the Amnesty report on Aden.

Mr. George Brown: I have asked Mr. Roderic Bowen, Q.C., to go to Aden as my personal representative. His terms of reference are
to examine on my behalf the procedures current in Aden for the arrest, interrogation and detention of persons suspected of terrorist activities; and to advise me whether there are any ways in which these procedures may be improved, having in mind on the one hand the rights of the individual and on the other the duty of the authorities to safeguard the community as a whole from lawless acts.
Mr. Bowen will naturally take into account the recently publicised allegations and will have full access to all detainees and persons held for interrogation.

Mr. Archer: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he confirm that Mr. Bowen will specifically examine the particular allegations which have been made? If so, will there be an opportunity for all those with evidence to give to submit it orally to Mr. Bowen?

Mr. Brown: As I said, Mr. Bowen has access to all detainees and prisoners and anybody else from whom he wishes to take evidence. As to the specific allegations, I have seen a good many newspaper reports about this. I have not received the full text of the reports of the representative of Amnesty International, so I cannot comment on them until I do.

Mr. Fisher: Bearing in mind the tremendous row four years ago from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—including the present Chancellor of the Duchy—which I had to answer from that Box about a few canings in Aden Prison, surely these far more serious allegations warrant a little more information than that which the right hon. Gentleman has given. Why cannot he publish the report of the Red Cross and of Mr. Bowen when he returns?

Mr. Brown: But I am taking very much more direct action about this matter than the hon. Gentleman took about the issue then. I cannot publish the report of the International Red Cross, because there has been no such report from the International Red Cross to Her Majesty's Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No. There have been reports on a confidential basis from the International Red Cross delegate there to the High Commissioner, and he has said

—he is reported again as recently as this morning, in The Times, as saying—that it would be very damaging to that organisation's work if they were published. As to Mr. Bowen's report, I will, of course, consider publication when I see the report.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm or deny the allegation that several prisoners are held without trial? If so, how many? Can he say when the Bowen Report will be published, or give some kind of a time scale?

Mr. Brown: Mr. Bowen knows that I wish to receive the report as quickly as possible and, as I said, I have made no commitment to publish; I will consider publication when I have the report. I want to get it as soon as possible, of course, but I do not want to force Mr. Bowen against a time-table, or the report may be less than good when it comes.
The question of detaining people for periods of time without trial—or proper production, as they say—is something that gives me cause for concern, and is one of the reasons for my asking Mr. Bowen to look into the matter. But I ask the House to recognise that what I want is to make a balance between the just rights of individuals, which I would wish to preserve, and the difficulties our forces have in a period of such active terrorism in carrying out their task.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Having just returned from Aden, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will pay tribute to the very heavy duties our troops are carrying out in security work? Secondly, can he give any information concerning reports received today that those who complained through Amnesty International have not appeared before Mr. Bowen to put their case?

Mr. Brown: I cannot comment on the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question—this is the first I have heard of it. I would regret it very much if it were true.
As to the first part, I thought that I had already done so, but I do. This is a very, very difficult exercise for people to carry out, and I am sure they do it with the utmost consideration for people. It is, of course, much easier to make an allegation of this kind than to disprove


it. And anyone who gives information voluntarily almost naturally afterwards would want to assert that he was forced to give it, from the very nature of the case. I am well aware of this, and because of that I framed Mr. Bowen's terms of reference as carefully as I did.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the allegations by Amnesty International are not against Her Majesty's Government—they are against the investigators at the political detention centre?

Mr. Brown: I am not at all sure that they are right, even then, and until I see the report I fail to see how I or anyone else can comment on what they are alleged to have said.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS PEACE KEEPING OPERATIONS

Mr. Luard: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the Irish resolution in the United Nations General Assembly concerning the authorisation and financing of peace-keeping operations.

Mrs. White: I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) on 31st October [Vol. 735, c. 9.]

Mr. Luard: Does my hon. Friend agree that this particular Resolution would be both a most constructive and widely supported proposal for solving this very longstanding financial problem of the U.N.; and that the greatest contribution Her Majesty's Government could make to solving that problem would be by supporting that Resolution?

Mrs. White: We very much welcome the initiative of the Irish Government in putting forward these proposals, but my hon. Friend will be aware that there are certain difficulties involved, especially for permanent members of the Security Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (UNITED NATIONS REPRESENTATION)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further steps Her Majesty's Government will take

to gain the admission of China to the United Nations.

Mr. Luard: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government is taking to secure a change in Chinese representation in the United Nations.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further steps he proposes to take to ensure that China now gains admission into membership of the United Nations at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Lomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action he proposes to take to secure the admission of the Republic of China to the United Nations.

Mr. George Brown: The speech I made recently to the United Nations General Assembly in New York should leave no doubt that I believe that the People's Republic of China should occupy the Chinese seat at the United Nations as soon as possible. Our representative at the United Nations will vote in this sense when the question is raised.

Mr. Judd: Would my right hon. Friend agree that if we believe in universal representation we ought to regard this as a measure to be decided by a simple majority rather than as a Special Resolution, to be decided by two-thirds majority?

Mr. Brown: That raises the question whether under the Charter this is an important question or not. It is very hard to declare that it is not; yet, by not declaring that it is not, the result is as my hon. Friend says. I am thinking about that, but I am pretty sure that at the moment we should vote for China's admission and vote also as recognising that the admission would be an important matter.

Mr. Luard: But would not my right hon. Friend agree that at least a first step could be made in the direction he had just mentioned? He himself has said that he would like to pursue the course of voting for Communist China's admission to the Specialised Agencies.

Mr. Brown: There is a Question on that aspect later in the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — FALKLAND ISLANDS (INCIDENT)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Argentine Government to his protest relating to the intrusion into the Falkland Islands of a party of Argentine citizens, including a functionary purporting to be Governor of the Islands; whether he has received an apology and an undertaking to punish those concerned; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. White: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Written Answers on this subject given by the Minister of State on 31st October [Vol. 735, c. 13] and by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on 1st November [Vol. 735, c. 59].
The Argentine Government immediately expressed their regret, and those responsible for the incident are now in custody in the Argentine.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I thank the hon. Lady for that reply, but can she, as a distinguished defender of the rights of colonial people, at least give an assurance that she does not propose to hand over the destiny of these people to the Hague Court?

Mrs. White: There is no such suggestion at present, and we are hoping to continue discussions with the Argentine on the subject very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONGO (MR. MARTIN LEONARD)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to obtain the release of Mr. Martin Leonard, detained in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 16th June.

Mrs. White: Mr. Leonard is held on charges of attempted murder and being in a restricted area in Lubumbashi airport.
Her Majesty's Embassy in Kinshasa have repeatedly pressed the Congolese authorities for Mr. Leonard's release or his early trial. I have myself recently seen the Congolese Ambassador in London, who expressed his concern and

who has referred the matter to his Government.

Mr. Ridsdale: Can the hon. Lady say when Her Majesty's consul last visited the man? I have information at a date at the end of last month that in October this man was without sleep for 70 hours and without food for six days. There is no hospital. Are the Red Cross Conventions being observed? Will she look into this as a matter of urgency?

Mrs. White: We have had regular consular access to Mr. Leonard. He himself went on voluntary hunger strike, but I am happy to say that it is now ended. We have no reason to suppose that the conditions in which he is held are unreasonable, but we are very anxious indeed that he should be brought rapidly to trial.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would the hon. Lady consider trying to enable Amnesty to look into this case and similar cases?

Mrs. White: There is no reason whatever for Amnesty so to do. Mr. Leonard is detained in accordance with the law on a criminal charge. There is no question of any political aspect in this.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE DELEGATION (COST)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the question of saving money on the expenses incurred by the delegation to the Council of Europe; whether he has now had his discussions with the leader of the delegation; and how much he expects to save on the near £11,000 per annum spent on this delegation.

Mr. George Thomson: Proposals for possible reductions in the cost of the Parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe will be discussed with the leader of the delegation at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE (STAFF CATERING ARRANGEMENTS)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied with staff catering arrangements at the Foreign Office; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Thomson: No, Sir. But some improvements have recently been made, and others are being pursued.

Mr. Lewis: I wonder what Ministers at the Foreign Office would think if guests were invited to the Foreign Office staff canteen and were to criticise it afterwards? Would the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ask his right hon. Friend whether he thinks that it was helpful to go to the United States and criticise hospitality given to him there?

Mr. Thomson: I have said that I am not satisfied with the catering arrangements inside the Foreign Office for the Foreign Office staff, though I must say that there has been an effort since 1964 to bring about some substantial improvements. There has been reconstruction, and there has been an effort to provide better facilities. At the moment, the Foreign Office staff are also able to use other Government canteens in the Whitehall area.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEMPAH (HOLDINGS) LTD.

Mr. Grant: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made or proposes to make to the Swiss authorities in Zürich and Geneva to trace the missing money belonging to Sempah (Holdings) Limited which has disappeared there.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Walter Padley): None, Sir. But, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House on 18th October [Vol 734, c. 14], the affairs of Sempah Holdings are at present the subject of a police inquiry. If, in the course of this inquiry, it becomes necessary to seek the co-operation of any foreign Government, we shall naturally request it.

Mr. Grant: Is the Minister of State aware that vast sums of money are being mulcted from companies in the City of London through European, and particularly Swiss, sources, and that Interpol is not working satisfactorily in the circumstances? Will he use every endeavour he can through diplomatic sources to get better co-operation with European countries?

Mr. Padley: That raises the question of the system of bank accounts in Switzerland, which is a matter of internal policy of the Swiss Government in which Her Majesty's Government could not interfere. And the question about the exchange control system should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST GERMANY (ARMY)

Mr. Dickens: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state Her Majesty's Government's policy on limitation of the size of the West German Army under the Brussels Treaty consequent upon the withdrawal of troops from the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. George Brown: Her Majesty's Government have made no decision to withdraw troops from the British Army of the Rhine. The provisions of the revised Brussels Treaty of 1954 affecting the size of the West German Army continue to apply.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the immense majority of hon. Members on this side of the House want to see an early reduction in the size of B.A.O.R. but are none the less against any corresponding increase in the size of the Federal German Army; and that this view is powerfully reinforced by yesterday's election results in Hesse? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that these views are adequately represented to the Federal German Government and all others concerned at an early date.

Mr. Brown: If those be my hon. Friend's views, I am sure that he will think that we are acting wisely in ensuring that the level of all forces in the N.A.T.O. provision in Europe shall be a matter for decision by all the N.A.T.O. countries.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the right hon. Gentleman given an assurance that there will be no reduction or withdrawal of British troops until the N.A.T.O. survey of force levels is complete?

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we should like that to happen. We have the other problem of offsetting


our foreign exchange costs, which falls unfairly on us at the moment, and we are negotiating about that at the same time.

Mr. Shinwell: Has not my right hon. Friend initiated a new principle in this regard, when he informs the House that we cannot reduce our forces in N.A.T.O. except with the consent of all the other N.A.T.O. countries? Surely this is a new principle?

Mr. Brown: I am not necessarily against initiating new principles. As a matter of fact, this is not one. If my right hon. Friend thinks back, he will realise that it is one for which he bears some responsibility. Successive Governments have accepted the basis of N.A.T.O. and have accepted the basis of W.E.U. and the procedures that have to be gone through if changes are to be made in the force levels. In any case, since I believe in the importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Alliance under which it is made, I would think that it is important to do it in this way.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, when we first agreed to place troops on the Rhine, it was clearly understood that we had the right to withdraw them if we required them for any emergency or because of the situation in this country?

Mr. Brown: I apologise if I misunderstood my right hon. Friend before. On the point that he makes, the fact that we stationed troops there in accordance with our Treaty obligations does not affect our rights, under certain conditions, to withdraw them for use elsewhere.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is this not a W.E.U. obligation and, since the virtual defection of France from N.A.T.O., is it not tremendously important that the balance of forces in Germany should not be disturbed except by allied decision?

Mr. Brown: With the nature of the threat that we are facing, the level of forces that we need to meet it should be the outcome of very careful study. But I repeat both to this House and to those outside that the very unfair burden of exchange costs which we have carried for a long time and which no one else has carried has to be met as well.

Oral Answers to Questions — NASSAU AGREEMENT

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Government intend to start to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement.

Mr. George Thomson: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) on 12th May. [Vol. 728, c. 593.]

Mr. Campbell: Have the Government changed their mind? If not, why are they being so slow about doing something?

Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. When we have reached agreement on nuclear matters in N.A.T.O., that will be the time to make any necessary changes in the Nassau Agreement.

Mr. Tapsell: In view of the Prime Minister's frequent sneering references to the Nassau Agreement, repeated in this House as recently as Question Time last Thursday, is it not extraordinary that the Government do not think it necessary to take urgent action?

Mr. Thomson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have listened to the Answer which I gave. We are engaged in N.A.T.O. at the moment in discussing various changes in the nuclear arrangements. Any change in the Nassau Agreement arises out of those, and they have to be completed first.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (SUBSCRTPTIONS)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that subscriptions to the United Nations are now £65 million in arrears, thus threatening the future of the organisation; and what action he proposes to take at the United Nations to encourage prompt payment.

Mrs. White: Well over half of the arrears arise from the refusal of certain countries to pay their assessments for peace-keeping operations. The General Assembly decided in 1965 not to apply the sanction in the Charter to Member States which had incurred these debts


but to solve the problem by voluntary contributions. Her Majesty's Government are among those who have contributed generously and who now look to others to play their part.

Mr. Digby: Is not this a very important problem for the future of the United Nations that has to be faced squarely? Will the Government support any measures to secure more prompt payment?

Mrs. White: We would hope to do so. We also support the proposals for economy and for streamlining the Organisation adopted last week following the report of the Committee of 14.

Mr. Longden: In view of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice which was accepted by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, was it not a grave error of judgment not to enforce Article 19 and make those who are two years in arrears forfeit their vote in the General Assembly?

Mrs. White: That is a matter of opinion, but, for the time being, we are bound by the decision of the General Assembly.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME INFORMATION SERVICES

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Paymaster-General if he will be prepared to answer about the co-ordination of home information services.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. George Wigg): Yes, Sir.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman in future will be less bashful about his duties? Will he say whether he had a hand in co-ordinating the information about the escape of the spy, Blake?

Mr. Wigg: I shall not be any more or any less bashful than I have been in the past. I shall carry out the instructions given me by the Prime Minister which have been explained to the House over and over again. As the hon. Gentleman is so solicitous for my welfare, may I be equally so for his? I suggest that he improves his reading capacity and reflects upon what he reads.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to answer a Question about the information services concerning religious discrimination in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Wigg: No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have given. If any hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question about the home information services, I shall be only too delighted to answer it. The more Questions hon. Gentlemen put down, the better I shall be pleased.

Mr. Lipton: Is my hon. Friend aware that an overwhelming minority of hon. Members know that he doing a grand job of work? In this connection, will he say what information he has about tape recordings of speeches made by hon. Members in Rhodesia?

Mr. Wigg: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to statements made to the Press by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre). His statement to the Press was on all-fours with his broadcast in Rhodesia. It was a piece of disgraceful nonsense. I do not possess any tapes. If any hon. Gentleman, including the hon. and gallant Gentleman for New Forest, cares to go to the Library, he can see in the world news service a report of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's broadcast and read for himself just how disgraceful that broadcast was.

Lord Balniel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A very sharp attack has been made by the right hon. Gentleman against one of my hon. Friends. May I ask whether, in accordance with the normal courtesies of the House, the right hon. Gentleman gave notice to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Wigg: If I could be as accurate a reader of the signs as the hon. Gentleman suggests, I should be much better off than I am. I did not know that this supplementary question was going to be asked. [Interruption.] Very good. The hon. and gallant Gentleman could have been here if he had wanted to. But I was not making a sharp attack. If he thinks that what I said constitutes a sharp attack——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was addressed on a point of order. The simple answer is that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks arose out of a supplementary question. It would have been impossible to give the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest notice of something that arose on a supplementary question.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: On a point of order. Was not that clearly a planted supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Tapsell: Is it not within the immediate recollection of the House that in answering that supplementary question the right hon. Gentleman was consulting notes prepared beforehand?

Mr. Wigg: If I consulted notes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Point of order."]—Further to that point of order. If any hon. Member thinks that I consulted notes he is entitled to look at them, and I pass a copy across the Table. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are wasting valuable Question time.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is this object here in order?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the right. hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to deal with what is and is not in order.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I ask seriously, not as a matter of joking, whether it is really in order for the Paymaster-General to throw an object across the Chamber and for another hon. Member to retrieve it? I suggest that this is wholly contrary to the practice of the House.

Mr. Speaker: In answer to the point of order, neither of the episodes added anything to the dignity of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what

initiative Her Majesty's Government propose to take in disarmament negotiations, in view of the recent statement by the United Nations in United Nations document A/6301/Add 1 that in the past year there has been a reversal of the trend of the past few years in progress in the stabilisation and reduction of armed forces and military budgets.

Mrs. White: We believe that our approach, of seeking agreement on non-proliferation and a comprehensive nuclear test ban as matters of the highest priority, is the right one. We are proceeding with persistent negotiations on the proposals already on the table.

Mr. Campbell: As the proposals were American and Russian respectively, has the new initiative on disarmament, promised in the Labour manifesto of 1964 yet taken place? If it has not, is it in reserve? If it has taken place, what was it?

Mrs. White: I should have thought that during the course of the last week or so the hon. Gentleman would have realised that my right hon. Friend, in his discussions with Mr. Gromyko, was making certain progress in these matters, which he hopes to continue when he visits Moscow and also that my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) gave another indication of the activity of Her Majesty's Government in these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIMONSTOWN AGREEMENT

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking to abrogate the Simonstown Agreement.

Mr. George Brown: None, Sir.

Mr. Wall: I am delighted with the right hon. Gentleman's reply, but can he say whether we are carrying out our side of the agreement? Are we supplying ammunition to South African ships built in this country, and is there any proposal to withdraw the C.-in-C., South Atlantic and his staff?

Mr. Brown: We are discussing proposals with South Africa for reductions in our provisions under this agreement which does not commit us to maintain


any particular level of force, but I cannot give details about this. Subject to statements made in the past about restrictions which we thought it right to impose and about which the House knows, we are certainly carrying out our side of the agreement.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not a fact that the Falkland Islands affair showed the importance of Simonstown to the Royal Navy and Great Britain?

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR WEAPONS (NON-PROLIFERATION)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in agreement on a nuclear non-proliferation pact within the last few months.

Mr. George Brown: It is clear that the major nuclear powers are anxious to conclude a non-proliferation agreement. I am trying hard to build on this in order to achieve a treaty. But much hard negotiating still remains ahead of us.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that so long as mainland China is not in the United Nations such an agreement is highly unlikely? Will he press that view on the United States?

Mr. Brown: I would not accept the view that such an agreement is highly unlikely in those circumstances. That does not detract from what I said earlier. I think that China should be seated as rapidly as possible in the United Nations.

Lord Balniel: As the N.A.T.O. Defence Ministers' meeting next month will be a crucial step towards this non-proliferation treaty, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the A.N.F. proposal, which has been an impediment towards achieving the treaty, has been withdrawn from the current proposals?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. That remains on the table for consideration, but there are many things to be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman may be sure that we are very busy on them at the moment.

Mr. Zilliacus: Does not my right hon. Friend recall the strong objection made by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition, that an international nuclear force was an insuperable obstacle to an

agreement with the Soviet Union on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons? Will he also bear in mind what the Soviet leaders have been saying about the impossibility of reaching agreement on these matters so long as we go on supporting the American war in Vietnam?

Mr. Brown: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has mixed up the M.L.F. with the A.N.F., but he may take it that I take into account all that he says.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose in the Security Council of the United Nations the creation of a United Nations force in the Far East based on Singapore as a contribution to stability in South-East Asia.

Mrs. White: We will certainly consider this when the time appears opportune. At present, there continues to be substantial opposition to the establishment of any permanent United Nations forces.

Mr. Hooley: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is important that steps be taken at the earliest possible moment to bring the question of peace and security in South-East Asia under the ambit of the United Nations, and not leave this issue to the vagaries of the policies of the great Powers?

Mrs. White: My hon. Friend's Question concerned a United Nations force and our attitude to that was described in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) on 17th June.

Oral Answers to Questions — SACHSENHAUSEN CONCENTRATION CAMP (PRISONERS)

Mr. Neave: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Group Captain Day and others who served in the Second World War were detained within the limits of Sachsenhausen concentration camp; and whether he will reconsider the decision not to compensate them in accordance with the Agreement signed on 9th June, 1964, with the Federal Republic of Germany.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what compensation based on the Anglo-German Treaty of 1964 Group Captain Day and other prisoners, who were placed by the Gestapo in a concentration camp, will receive.

Mr. George Brown: For reasons fully explained by Ministers on a number of occasions I regret that Group Captain Day and his companions, gallant though they were, do not come within the category of those who suffered from Nazi persecution, as defined in the Anglo-German Agreement of 1964.

Mr. Neave: If it is agreed that these men were put in Sachsenhausen camp by the Nazis more than 20 years ago, how can the right hon. Gentleman be justified in saying today that they were not the victims of Nazi persecution? Is not this a very sad and deplorable position?

Mr. Brown: I did not say that. I said that they are not victims as defined in the Anglo-German Agreement of 1964. That was not drawn up by me, or by us, but by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were the Government. I tell the hon. Gentleman frankly that when I first heard of this, and first heard from him, I wondered whether we were being legalistic. I went into it very carefully, but the fact is that if we were to make an exception in this case—and it would be a clear exception to what the agreement provides—there would be many other people with at least as big a claim, and many others with even bigger claims. As the amount of money would be stretched beyond all reason, I am afraid that we have to remain within the terms of the agreement.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend give this matter further consideration? Whatever may be said about my right hon. Friend, no one can accuse him of a lack of humanity or a lack of a sense of social justice. Will he have regard to the fact—and it is an inescapable fact—that these gallant men have been deprived of compensation on technical grounds? They are not asking for very much. Surely he will not allow a technicality to stand in the way of justice?

Mr. Brown: I rather wondered about that. I went into the matter very deeply, but it is not just a technicality. I assure

my right hon. Friend that there are very many other people with whom I would be concerned who have an even greater claim than these gallant men. In fact the agreement, rightly or wrongly, excludes all those, and provides for certain categories to which they do not belong. In the circumstances, the money having been allocated, and final registration having been achieved, I do not see that I can do any more about it, much as I admire the gallantry and the initiative shown by Group Captain Day and his colleagues.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I had a second look at this, and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will do the same. I think it is possible that a mistake has been made here. The right hon. Gentleman says that there are very many others who would be included if there were an extension of the definition. How many are involved? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will personally have another look at this. I think that it is a case which the House would wish him to look at afresh.

Mr. Brown: I wish that the Minister then responsible had drawn the agreement in a different way. I wish that the total sum of money then achieved by Ministers who negotiated it had been bigger, but I am cabin'd by both. In those circumstances I can only say that I have gone into it with a deep desire to meet this case if I could, but, frankly, I cannot.

Mrs. Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend attempt to have this agreement revised? I have been to this terrible concentration camp, and I learned much of what had been done to our men while in captivity there. Many of them died and their relatives never received compensation. I ask my right hon. Friend to attempt to have this agreement revised.

Mr. Brown: I cannot give that undertaking.

Mr. Thorpe: Even if it is accepted that other people are affected, why should these gallant men have to suffer from the imprecision of drafting of the original treaty? Is not this a case where, if the German Government are not prepared to make some payment, we at least have a moral obligation to make an ex gratia payment?

Mr. Brown: Many other people suffered from German treatment even more—if that is possible to imagine—than these people did. I am afraid that I have to stand by the agreement after all this lapse of time.

Mr. Ginsburg: May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend has said and ask the Foreign Secretary whether this concentration camp was inspected by the International Red Cross as a proper prisoner-of-war camp should be? May I plead with him to use his humanity and even go to the extent of personally interviewing the people concerned?

Mr. Brown: I did not want to make this point, but I will obviously have to. Even though both these establishments were within the same barbed wire and the same compound, there was a considerable difference between the special enclosure where these men were imprisoned and the concentration camp itself. These men had access to many so-called privileges that the people in Sachsenhausen clearly did not have. I did not want to make this point. I wanted to show that I was concerned with what happened to these men. But they were never in Sachsenhausen camp proper. They were in a special compound on their own, with access to all kinds of things—books, outside parcels and cigarettes—which I can assure my hon. Friend the concentration camp victims never had.

Mr. Ridsdale: In all fairness to these men, may I press the right hon. Gentleman to the extent that if he is going to give a negative answer he should consider sending this case to the Ombudsman, when that office is established?

Mr. Brown: I am certain that in all justice to lots of other people the decision that I am taking is the right one.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: While it is true that these men were technically outside the camp, they were able to see and experience all that went on inside—if my information is correct—and this was a harrowing experience, and they suffered from it. Would it not be possible to have conversations between the two sides of the House to see if we can work out some agreement which will do something, at any rate?

Mr. Brown: I am sure that no such agreement can be worked out, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to look into the matter and wants to see me, with any other hon. Members, I shall be happy to see him. Hon. Members have been seen by my hon. Friend and the men themselves have been seen. That has been explained. I shall be glad to go into the question with hon. Members myself. I have looked into it deeply. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the treaty excluded many people who were the victims of harsh Nazi persecution, and if we are going to rewrite it we shall have to include them.

Mr. Molloy: I appreciate the difficult situation in which my right hon. Friend finds himself concerning the legal technicality of the matter, but will he reconsider his dictum that to increase the number of people to be regarded as having suffered as a result of these atrocities may deter ultimate justice?

Mr. Brown: I did not deliver any such dictum. I do not recognise myself as being in any legal difficulties. I have interpreted the agreement. I have looked at the sum of money and I have looked at what the consequences would be if we were to stretch the agreement to cover these men—and I have come to the conclusion, much as I admire these men and much as I would like to do what I can for them, that, in justice to many other people, I cannot go any further.

Mr. Ginsburg: I asked my right hon. Friend whether this camp was inspected by the International Red Cross or the Swiss Government, and he did not answer. It has a bearing on the matter, and I should be grateful if he will answer this point.

Mr. Brown: I thought that my hon. Friend was referring to Sachsenhausen concentration camp. I am not briefed on that. To my knowledge these men certainly received Red Cross parcels in the compound in which they were kept.

Oral Answers to Questions — POINTS OF ORDER

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. I have waited until the end of Question Time to raise this point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to draw your attention to the fact that this Question


Time was peculiar in the number of bogus points of order—which you have ruled were not points of order—raised by the Opposition, thereby wasting the time of the House. I invite you to make some observation in order to have that practice discontinued.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that Mr. Speaker is very grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for reinforcing the Chair, when the Chair does call attention to the raising of points of order during Question Time—points which might be taken at the end of Question Time and, even worse, points which are not points of order.

ITALY (FLOODS)

Mr. Dalyell: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his offer of help to the Italian Government in relation to flood disasters.

Mr. George Brown: I am sure the whole House will join with me in expressing the utmost sympathy to our Italian friends in the national disaster which has overtaken them. I have instructed our Ambassador to find out how best we can help. As soon as we have his report, we shall gladly do whatever lies in our power.

Mr. Dalyell: As a member representing thousands of constituents who work in Edinburgh, which has a twin-city relationship with Florence, may I, on behalf of my constituents, offer their sympathy to the people in the Italian river valleys? Does not this tragic situation once again underline the widely-argued case for a national disaster unit, inside the British Armed Forces, to meet catastrophes both at home and abroad? Secondly, while recognising——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a speech on a supplementary question.

Mr. Dalyell: Then I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Brown: I have some doubts about that, but it is really a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we are grateful to him for the statement he has made that he will consider what help can be given?

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend consult the Home Secretary in order to see whether certain civil defence units can be sent to Italy to help?

Mr. Brown: When I asked the Ambassador to find out, as a matter of urgency, what we could do to help, I had all kinds of forces, as well as other forms of help, in mind.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in any scheme that he proposes a provision which will enable voluntary contributions to be made from the many lovers of Italy in this country?

Mr. Brown: Yes. One of the things that we wish to do is to make a monetary contribution, if our Italian friends are agreeable. But it is best for us to find out from them what they would like us to do. There will be tremendous opportunities for those of us who have been to Italy and who like the place and the people to make our private contributions.

MISREPRESENTATION BILL [Lords]

Referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD SAFETY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.38 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is substantially the same Measure as that which I brought before the House earlier this year. I am happy to say that most of the provisions of the Bill were welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I think that we all saw the new principles introduced by the Bill as an important step forward in the continuing battle to reduce the intolerable number of casualties on our roads. This is a cause to which Members of all parties are dedicated. A cynic once said that road accidents are a measure of a nation's prosperity—the more accidents, the more affluence. If that is so, then Britain is rich indeed.
It is only nine months since I introduced the original version of the Bill, and in that short time at least 5,500 people have been killed on our roads and another 73,000 seriously injured. These deaths and injuries are self-inflicted, in the sense that society inflicts this appalling damage on itself. We believe that it is primarily through a greater social awareness of the evil, a greater willingness to accept discipline, restraint—and penalties—that society will cure itself of the disease.
The Bill makes a number of specific and, I believe, absolutely essential proposals for improving the situation, but its underlying purpose is to help in creating this greater consciousness of the problem and determination to deal with it.
The Bill, like the previous one, falls naturally into two parts, the first part dealing with drink and driving and the second with the safety of goods vehicles. In each part there is one major change from what was put before the House last February, and I shall devote most of my time to explaining the reasons for these changes.
The aim of Part I of the Bill is to make the sanctions against drinking and driving far more effective than they are

under present legislation. To do this we propose a far-reaching change in the law, as the House knows. We are creating a new offence, namely, the offence of driving with more than a certain proportion of alcohol in the blood. By this means we shall be taking the guesswork out of the law on drink and driving.
Once the Bill has been brought into force, it will be an offence to drive with a blood alcohol level of more than 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. All the old arguments about what constitutes impairment and all the old devices for trying to decide whether or not a driver is impaired will go. Instead there will be a clear-cut level, and this 80 milligramme level which we have fixed has been arrived at on the recommendation of the B.M.A. and bearing in mind the views put forward by the Medical Research Council.
I would not like to suggest that this level is fixed for all time. I said it was a scientific standard, and, as such, the House might think it was subject to the eternal verity which the laws of science are supposed to possess. Certainly the medical authorities agree that, with a concentration of alcohol in the blood beyond this level, the ability to drive of the great majority of people is impaired.
Just how important it is to have this new standard hon. Members will realise from the fact that at present prosecutions in this country are rarely brought against drivers having a concentration of less than 150 milligrammes, and even then a very high proportion are acquitted. With this new standard in force, we estimate that the saving in casualties each year will be between 18,000 and 32,000. None the less, there is a dispute about what the level should be, some people holding that it is too high and others holding that it is too low.

Clause 6 therefore gives me power to vary this limit by Order, subject to the affirmative Resolution of both Houses. This means that, in the light of our experience of the working of the new procedure, we shall be able to make such changes as appear to be necessary.

Clause 1, which I take not to be a matter of controversy, describes and defines the new offence which we are creating and the punishments provided for


committing that offence. The Clause is identical with Clause 1 of the original Bill.

Clause 2 deals with the powers of the police to carry out roadside breath tests. Here we have an important change, which I shall deal with later.

Clause 3 lays down the procedure for obtaining specimens of blood or urine from a suspected driver and also prescribes penalties for unreasonably failing to provide those specimens. In both these Clauses there are relatively minor changes.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Before the Minister leaves Clause 3, will she explain whether it is intended that a doctor shall be present when the test is made?

Mrs. Castle: Does the hon. Gentleman mean the blood or the urine test?

Mr. Wilson: The blood test.

Mrs. Castle: Yes, it is so intended.

Clauses 4, 5 and 6, which I do not propose to discuss further today, deal with periods of disqualification, applications of the Bill to the Armed Forces, and the interpretation and fixing of the blood alcohol limit. These Clauses are the same as in the previous Bill.

I come now to the changes we have made in Part I, and I will deal with the relatively lesser ones first. Clause 2 provides, as in the previous Bill, that any person can be required to take a roadside breath test if the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that he was driving a vehicle involved in an accident. But, obviously, some of these drivers will have suffered injury and it will be necessary to take them straight to hospital. This does not mean that a breath test cannot be administered. Provided the hospital doctor does not object on the grounds that it would be prejudicial to the proper care and treatment of the patient, it ought to be possible for the breath test to be administered in hospital. Indeed, it is essential that wherever possible this should be done.

It is not unheard of for drivers involved in accidents to exaggerate or even to feign injury so as to be taken to hospital where, they hope, they will gain sanctuary from police inquiries. This practice is as much a nuisance to hospital accident departments

as it is an interference with the course of justice. We have therefore amended Clause 2 to make it possible to conduct breath tests in hospital, but—and this is a vital safeguard for drivers—only if the doctor in charge of the case has no objection, and the doctor must be notified by the police that they wish to make the test. The doctor is free to object if he thinks that provision of a breath specimen, or even knowledge of the fact that the police want to make the test, would, in any way prejudice the patient's health or treatment.

There is a parallel change in Clause 3. If the preliminary breath test shows that a further test, by blood or urine specimen, is desirable, then it should be possible for this type of test to be made in hospital. Normally, this second test will happen in a police station, but, as I have said, in the case of an injured driver this may not be possible. Clause 3 now makes this possible in hospital, subject to exactly the same safeguards as are provided in the case of breath tests in Clause 2.

Let me add here that hospital staff will not be involved in any way in taking these specimens. This will always be done by a policeman or, in the case of blood tests, by a police doctor. Hon. Members will agree that these changes are for the better. They tighten up the scope of the Bill's operations and at the same time they ensure that the driver's rights are properly safeguarded.

In Clause 3 we have made a further change, arising from a suggestion made when we were considering the original Bill in Committee. Court proceedings will be based on the analysis of a specimen of blood or urine and not on the results of the breath test. Analysis of a blood specimen gives the most accurate results. If the suspected driver refuses to provide a specimen of blood, he will be asked to provide a specimen of urine instead. In fact, it is necessary for maximum accuracy in analysis to provide two specimens of urine. The original Bill left it to administrative practice to see that these two specimens were obtained. The new Bill tightens up this looseness and lays it down, as a matter of Statute, that two specimens shall be taken.

I turn now to the major change in the Bill, which centres around the only


part of the original Bill which aroused any serious measure of disagreement. This was the proposal to introduce random roadside breath tests. It aroused more than just disagreement. It aroused in some quarters almost hysterical and irrational opposition. Our original proposal was that the police should be able to stop any driver completely at random and require him to take a breath test.

I argued when I introduced the Bill that this was the most effective deterrent we could provide, namely, to make everybody in charge of a vehicle liable to a check at any time. I still hold to the view that we must have a random element in our provisions. It is not because of any change of heart about this fundamental principle that there are changes in the Bill we are considering today.

As I said earlier, one of the objectives of the Bill—a very important one—is to alter the attitude of ordinary people to drink and driving. We must get the man or the woman who drinks to an extent which impairs driving ability and then drives recognised as dangerous and anti-social. We shall not do this by means of legal procedures which are widely regarded as unfair to those affected by them.

I myself do not accept that there is anything unfair about an entirely random test. I do not believe that the mere fact of being required to take such a test would count, as has been widely alleged, as a social stigma. But we must be realistic about this. Though the opposition to this proposal totally failed to convince me that our plans were wrong, it did convince me that enough people thought that we would in some sense unjustly persecute completely innocent motorists to make me think again. It is on the basis of this analysis of public opinion, as well as on other reasons on which I will touch, that the Bill has been changed.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I am most interested in this part of the argument about why the Government have changed their mind. I understand that it is because some area of public opinion voiced itself strongly against the proposal. What kind of sampling did the Government make to find out what public opinion felt about it? Where is the evidence, apart from the attitude of the A.A. and the R.A.C., that the community at

large did not approve of random spot checks?

Mrs. Castle: We are not acting merely on the evidence of the A.A. or any other motoring organisation. We are acting on the evidence that came in to Members of Parliament and to the Department of a strength of feeling which was genuinely held in some quarters, quite apart from the motoring organisations, that an issue of individual liberty was involved. I never held that view.
I tell the House frankly that I am anxious to make an important start in this field which will command widespread public co-operation. This is essential if we are to change social attitudes. If my hon. Friend will allow me to con tinue to explain the Bill, I think that it will be seen that we have attempted to retain some element of the random test system whilst concentrating the effectiveness of the deterrent. I hope and believe that this will have a very dramatic effect on public behaviour and gradually and increasingly on public attitudes.
What change have we in fact made? I want to emphasise that we have by no means completely abandoned the random principle. What we have done is to concentrate the operation of the random principle so that those who can now be required to take a roadside test are more likely to include offenders than would be the case if any driver could be stopped at any time. One of the arguments that arose during our earlier discussions and which, as a result of the representations which were made, impressed me as having some substance, was that the completely random test might, by using scarce enforcement resources on a wide range of completely innocent people, actually lessen the deterrent effect instead of increasing it.
What will happen now is that under Clause 2 the police will be able to carry out roadside breath tests on any motorist whom they have reason to suspect of either committing a moving traffic offence or of being involved in an accident. Also under Clause 2 the police will be able, having already stopped a motorist for any reason, to require him to take a breath test if they have grounds to suspect him of having taken alcohol, regardless of the quantity.
It will be apparent to hon. Members that these tests will still be random in


a very important sense. Accidents can happen to all of us. The police frequently stop drivers in the course of their duty—for example, when checking for stolen goods. At the same time, there is this element of concentration. The category of moving traffic offences includes speeding, dangerous driving and careless driving, all of which are particularly likely to be committed by drivers who have drunk more than they should.
I stress that we are not giving the police power to stop motorists solely in order to see whether they merit a breath test. There can, therefore, be no question of the police setting up traps just round the corner from a public house and waiting to pounce.
One of the most important features of the original Bill was that it made it an offence to drink and drive, even though the driver had not yet reached a point when he was visibly and obviously drunk. This element is retained in this Bill. I lay great stress on this, because we must get drivers to realise that they can be seriously impaired by drink long before they are visibly impaired. Therefore, it is just as wrong for a driver to drive in the first case as when he is clearly and visibly drunk. In fact, it may be even more dangerous to do so, because, if it is seen that a man is drunk, steps can often be taken to prevent him from driving.
I understand that the Bill as now modified meets the objections which the motoring organisations raised to its original form. I have always been glad that from the outset they supported the creation of the new offence which appeared in the original Bill and which is retained in this one. I am glad to know that we shall now have their full cooperation in getting the public to accept the proposed method of enforcement.
The publicity and controversy attracted by the Bill in its original form centred on Part I, with which I have just been dealing. This should not hide the fact that Part II is an extremely important piece of legislation.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Will the Minister explain to the House in simpler language the definition in Clause 6 of "the prescribed limit"? What does

80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood
mean in language perhaps better known in the House and outside it?

Mrs. Castle: I do not know what other type of language the hon. and learned Gentleman means. I certainly do not intend to try to interpret it in terms of the number of drinks taken. That could lead one into very dangerous waters by encouraging people to believe that there is a safe limit up to which they can drink. All I can say to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that it is a level which can be ascertained objectively and which we have fixed on the basis of medical advice.

Mr. Ronald Bell: In order that people might know what to avoid doing, could not the right hon. Lady express it in Imperial measure?

Mrs. Castle: I have no intention of doing so. I repeat that it would be most unwise for us to give any impression that there is a certain number of drinks which can safely be taken. The principle which we must bring home to people is that there is no safe level in driving and that the only safe rule is not to drink and drive. Further than that I am not prepared to go.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does that mean that the right hon. Lady has shifted from her position when in her last speech on this Bill she mentioned six pints of beer or six large whiskies?

Mrs. Castle: Yes. I freely admit that, although that was what one might call a popular interpretation of the medical limit which was given to me by reputable sources, I found, and I realised afterwards, that this was an unwise thing for me to have said. Therefore, I am retracting it. I give no figures of drink equivalent, partly because individuals vary and because the effect of drink on them varies. Therefore, I shall stick firmly to the medical interpretation.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Before the right hon. Lady leaves Part I, could she clarify something in Clause 2(1,6) in which we find the words:
to suspect him of having committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion"?


Are we to take it that any driver in the country who now commits what the House will understand is a technical speeding offence will automatically have a breath test taken?

Mrs. Castle: It can be taken. A moving traffic offence could certainly include the violation of the speed limit. I do not like the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this is a technical error into which people can slip. It is a very serious error in driving. But the test would not necessarily be automatic. There is a power to apply the test, and it will be applied at the discretion of the police, on which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is to wind up the debate, will be glad to dilate.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): The right hon. Lady has said that it is impossible to slip into an offence such as speeding, presumably because one has a speedometer. How does one avoid slipping into the offence of drinking too much if one has not got a do-it-yourself breathalyser? How is one to know at what stage one commits an offence if one is not able to ascertain whether one has 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood?

Mrs. Castle: As I said earlier, there is no safe prevention from slipping into the offence except by not drinking when driving.

Mr. Doughty: I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for giving way again. This is important. It is no good bringing the Bill before the House unless the public can understand. There are tables. What do the B.M.A. tables show is the equivalent of alcohol representing 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood?

Mrs. Castle: The reason why I have refused to repeat what I said in my previous speech about quantities is that the B.M.A. has stopped giving conversion tables. The House must stop thinking in terms of conversion tables, and we must start talking to the public in terms of the fact that the socially responsible person will not drink and drive. That is as simple a way as I can put it.
I want now to turn to Part II of the Bill. I repeat that this is an extremely important piece of legislation which establishes

a number of new principles essential to the safety of traffic and of people on our roads. Here, when the original Bill was introduced, there was no controversy. The House was united in welcoming the proposals in the Bill which already had the approval of the users' organisations concerned and which are repeated in this Bill. Therefore, I hope I need not detain the House for long in enumerating in detail those parts which are not controversial and which are repeated in this Bill.
Briefly, Part II gives us the powers that we need to end the menace of the ill-maintained and over-loaded lorry. Not only is such a lorry dangerous in itself, but so is the frustration which it causes to other road users when they have to crawl behind an over-burdened heavy lorry as it struggles uphill. I am sure we all agree that irritation and impatience are two of the most dangerous sensations that a driver can experience while at the wheel.
If anybody should doubt the value of what we are doing in Part II, I refer him to the latest statistics issued by the Ministry of the results of spot checks on goods vehicles. In the year ending 30th September last, 120,000 vehicles were inspected at such checks. There were 13,500 vehicles found to be dangerous; that is to say, 11 per cent. of those spot tested were found to be dangerous, while 36,500, or 30 per cent., were found to be defective but not dangerous. These figures indicate the existence of a minority of operators whose standards are anti-socially low, who are willing to risk the lives of their employees and the public at large for the sake of quick profits.
The Bill attacks these problems on a wide front. We shall introduce annual testing of goods vehicles weighing more than 30 cwt. unladen. At present only those below this weight fall under the testing regulations. The aim is to give the heavier vehicles a first test in 1968 and 1969 and to have annual testing in operation by 1970. Clauses 8 and 21 of the Bill give us the necessary powers to do this.
The same Clauses give us the power to "plate" vehicles to show their maximum safe weight. Under this system vehicles reporting for test will be assigned weights which they must not exceed, and they will have to carry plates showing what


that weight is. All this will be done through a chain of Government testing centres. We have already selected the sites for virtually all of these, and despite the delay to the legislation which was imposed by the General Election, we have every hope that the scheme will start punctually.
Also by 1970 we hope to have a "type approval" scheme in force. Clauses 9 to 12 of the Bill give us the necessary powers. This system will strengthen and simplify our control of the construction of new vehicles. By approving the design of vehicles before they go on the roads, we shall avoid having to rely on picking up the bad ones afterwards. Let me emphasise that we do not intend to interfere with the manufacturers' design and production process. We shall approve a maker's type if it satisfies the construction and performance requirements laid down. So long as we are satisfied that the production line will turn out models to the same standard as the type, we shall not interfere in any way with the organisation of production.

Mr. John Hall: Will the right hon. Lady's safety regulations and design requirements include measures to stop the emission of dangerous exhaust fumes?

Mrs. Castle: There is no doubt that if we get a proper weighting of vehicles we shall immediately help to correct a number of other evils, of which this is one. However, this is a matter with which we are dealing on other fronts.

Clauses 15 and 16 strengthen our spot-check provisions. Clause 17 enables us to make regulations to compel operators to make maintenance checks of their vehicles and to keep records of these checks. In particular, we are going to extend our spot checks so as to be able to prohibit the driving of unladen as well as laden vehicles. We are also taking powers to order the unloading of dangerously overloaded vehicles.

Finally, we shall reintroduce, I hope in 1968, the scheme for heavy goods vehicles drivers' licences. The 1960 Road Traffic Act gives us power to revive the scheme, but there are some improvements to be made which are provided

for in Clauses 18 and 19. The scheme will be operated through the Government testing stations.

I do not think I need detain the House with discussion here of the subsequent Clauses of the Bill which are concerned with the regulatory powers needed to bring into force the intentions which I have outlined, nor with the financial effects of the Bill.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Before the right hon. Lady leaves the question of testing vehicles, may I ask whether she has considered the problem of farmers' lorries which do not normally go on the road? Would she agree that they could be tested by Ministry of Agriculture inspectors when they come to inspect farm vehicles, rather than having to go to testing stations?

Mrs. Castle: It depends on whether the vehicle is on the road. If it is used for internal farm purposes, then presumably a different situation would apply. But any vehicle that goes on our roads must comply with the laws that affect vehicles on the road.
Before I sit down, I must draw the attention of the House to the one important change which we have made in Part II since the Bill came before the House in February. Hon. Members will recall that in the original Bill we increased the penalty for overloading a vehicle from £50 to £200. We have now extended that increased penalty to cover contraventions of the Construction and Use Regulations involving brakes, tyres and steering, and for other dangerous breaches of those regulations. This change is in line with our determination that those who put the lives of others at risk shall be subject to appropriately severe penalties.
I remind the House that the credit for this extension of the increased penalty goes chiefly to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), who told us in the Second Reading debate on the original Bill of a lorry which was involved in an accident, causing the death of two adults and four children. The lorry was one of three defective vehicles in the firm's garage, and its brakes were practically worthless. Under the existing law, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the firm responsible for this shocking neglect could not be fined more than £50. In


winding up the debate on that occasion, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary undertook to consider carefully what had been said about penalties in such cases, and the result of that consideration is the change in the Bill to which I have just referred I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how grateful we are to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth.
This completes all that I wish to say at this stage about the individual provisions of the Bill. But I wish to add this about the Bill so far as it concerns the safety of lorries: I am convinced that the great majority of operators of goods vehicles in this country are responsible and public-spirited men. They do not wittingly send their employees out in vehicles which should not be on the roads. It is a minority who need to tighten up their maintenance and inspection, and it is a very small minority, I am glad to say, who offend so seriously that they are likely to run foul of the tougher penalties we now propose. Throughout the preparation of this legislation, my Ministry has received the closest co-operation from the various organisations representing manufacturers, operators and drivers of goods vehicles. Consultation will continue as we come to introduce the various regulations which the Bill enables us to bring in.
The Bill as a whole marks the increasing readiness of people in this country to take road safety seriously. But taking road safety seriously unfortunately means that all of us on the roads, private motorists and commercial operators alike, must accept more rules and regulations and restraints than in the past. The Government will not create more of these than are necessary, but neither shall we hesitate to legislate toughly in the interests of saving lives. It is in this spirit that I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Before the right hon. Lady sits down——

Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Lady has sat down.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: We have heard a rather different speech from the right hon. Lady today compared with her speech when she first presented the Bill to the House. Whatever

has happened in the meantime to make the right hon. Lady change her mind—whether the reasons are rational or not—one thing is clear, and that is that she has learned that while one can lead people in a democracy one cannot drive them. That is a very valuable lesson for a Government who believe too often that the gentlemen—and the ladies—in Whitehall know best.
Doubtless, some of my hon. Friends—if they are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker—may feel inclined to twit the right hon. Lady because she has changed her mind, but I urge them to resist the temptation. After all, the return of the prodigal is a time for rejoicing and killing the fatted calf, not for rubbing salt into the wound. I am particularly anxious that the right hon. Lady should have an easy passage after her conversion, because I am afraid that the road to Damascus is one she will have to tread many times in the future if we are to take at their face value all her utterances on transport. For this reason, we want her to have no fears of unkind recrimination from us when the blinding light of the obvious strikes through to her.
On transport matters, the right hon. Lady talks a lot, and it is perhaps not always very good sense. But we forgive her this very feminine trait of loquacity because she has displayed today another very feminine trait, the right of every woman to change her mind. We welcome this change, not in a cock-a-hoop I-told-you-so manner, but because we realise that by making the change the Minister has removed the main barrier to the Bill's success. Now that she realises how easy it is, I hope that the House and the nation will have many more occasions when they can be grateful to the right hon. Lady for having the good sense to be a real woman and to do the opposite of what she formerly said.

Mr. Frank Hooley: As I understood my right hon. Friend, she said that she had not changed her mind but had bowed to opinion which she regarded as misguided.

Mr. Galbraith: That is really the chief reason why I am so pleased, because it shows that once in a while, although the gentlemen in Whitehall think they know best, they give way to public opinion.


Because there has been this change over random checks, it does not mean that we are at all tolerant towards people who drink excessively and then drive. Certainly, we on this side of the House are not. Drink is dangerous on the road, whether it is consumed by drivers or pedestrians. If coroners are now to have powers to test the blood of motorists who die as a result of accidents, would it not be wise to have the full picture by also including figures for pedestrians?
There are those who seek to minimise the effect of drink on road accidents by referring to the relatively small percentages of accidents caused through drink. But they forget that percentages do not always tell the full story, and that when these percentages are quantified and turned into actual people the numbers involved, to say nothing of the economic loss caused by these accidents, are enough to show that further action is necessary.
Because we on this side of the House realise this, we accept now as we always have done—and I stress that—the need to have an objective standard for testing impairment, not based on clinical observation but determined merely by the amount of alcohol in the blood. As the right hon. Lady said, this is indeed a great change in the law. It creates an automatic offence which does not depend on observable signs of impaired driving. Nevertheless, we accept this test because we accept the advice of the B.M.A. that at 80 milligrammes the driving of the vast majority of people will be dangerously impaired.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The B.M.A. said that the level at which driving was impaired was 50 milligrammes, not 80 milligrammes, per 100 millilitres, as provided in the Bill.

Mr. Galbraith: So far as I recall, while it certainly mentioned that other figure, the B.M.A. recommended 80.
I understand that the motoring organisations, too, accept the test. The right hon. Lady said so, I think. This is a very important factor in the situation because, without their support and their crusading zeal for safety, the Government are never likely to have the co-operation of motorists, and, thanks to Conservative

affluence, the motorists are now, in effect, the bulk of the people in this country. It is only by getting the co-operation of the bulk of the people that the Government have the least chance of carrying through the revolution in social behaviour which will be necessary before people stop having one more for the road.
I realise that a great many people, having thought carefully on the matter, regard the abandonment of random checks as making the Bill a dead letter, but I do not believe this to be so at all. From a practical point of view, I doubt that random checks could ever work. The sheer logistics alone would create tremendous problems—setting up the check posts, arranging for offending cars to be properly parked, waiting for the balance of the 25 minutes if necessary, driving the suspect to the police station and then back again if he is not guilty, and so on.

Mr. Tony Gardner: Have not some other European countries managed to sort out the logistics and overcome these problems?

Mr. Galbraith: I am dealing with this in our own country. Whatever some hon. Members opposite may think about it, my mind boggles at what would be required of the police if random checks were to be carried out an a scale sufficiently large to be effective. If they were not carried out on such a scale, the scheme would achieve little, as the relative failure of the spot checks of lorries shows only too clearly. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that it is precisely because of the limitation on spot checking as a method of enforcing safety standard that she is now providing, in Part II of the Bill, to supplement spot checks by annual testing. But, quite apart from the practical limitations of random checks, a much more serious objection was that people have never really thought them fair. Whatever gloss one may put upon it, to give an official the right to check at random without suspicion an apparently law-abiding citizen is an infringement of one of the basic human liberties in this country.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman's party when in office always supported the power contained in Section 223 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, enabling any police officer in uniform to stop


a motor car at any time, without excuse, the motorist being required to stop in those circumstances. What is the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, if there is no increase on that power suggested in a random check system?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman, who has already intervened more than once in the debate, may be forfeiting his right to catch the eye of the Chair if he wishes to speak later. I wish to proceed with my argument.
I was saying that, whatever gloss is put upon it, it is an infringement of one of the basic human liberties in this country. Even if the hon. Gentleman does not think so, he will find that most of his constituents do.
Furthermore, a law which does not strike a response in people's hearts is a very dangerous law, because the cohesion of society ultimately depends upon the majority of people feeling that the law and their sense of moral right go together. The right hon. Lady must be particularly careful here. Repressive legislation such as her party indulges in, of which random checks is a good example and of which she threatened us with more towards the end of her speech today, if it is unbacked by public consent often leads to social evils far worse than originally contemplated. Prohibition in America is a very good example.
The trouble with right hon. and hon. Members opposite is that they have not realised that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. The black market which flourished the last time the party opposite was in power is another example. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am quite ready to believe that hon. Members opposite do not like to hear a few home truths, but I propose to give them a few. Today, as a result of the freeze, excessive taxation and the dictatorship inherent in the Land Commission Bill, we have the beginning of the same seeds of social disruption, with people trying to "get away with it", not caring whether they break the law. This is a state of affairs which always flourishes when the ordinary plain man feels that the law is not reasonable or fair or in accordance with his sense of natural justice.
However, by abandoning random checks, the Minister has at least seen the

red light, and we are glad of that. She has thereby given the objective test a real chance of working successfully. Nevertheless, we remain somewhat suspicious. The Government are, after all, a Socialist Government. They believe in the State rather than the individual. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no good groaning. That is true. The recent incredible attempt by the Attorney-General, apparently backed by the Prime Minister, to gag comment on the Aberfan disaster——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Broad as is the debate on Second Reading, it does not cover all the Government's policies.

Mr. Galbraith: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. What I was trying to point out, with examples, is the danger which occurs when freedom is not given its proper place. We remain suspicious, and I was giving reasons why we are suspicious, but I shall give no more of them now. Because of our suspicion, we have to query some of the proposals in the Bill which we might otherwise accept. For example, what precisely does the provision in Clause 2(1, a) mean? The right hon. Lady dealt with this partly but not entirely clearly. As I read it—I shall be delighted to know that I am wrong—it means that someone coming out of a public house could be subjected to a test even if he was stone-cold sober, or even if he looked stone-cold sober. The righ hon. Lady said that this was not so. If it is not so, would it not be wise to draft the Bill so that the police should first have reasonable ground for suspecting that alcohol beyond the prescribed limits had been drunk before they required anyone to carry out the test?

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Galbraith: I heard the hon. Gentleman perfectly clearly on the first occasion when he intervened, but I do not allow him now. He is one too many in the House.

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had had one too many. Is that in order?

Mr. Galbraith: I began to think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman had. However, as he has cracked that good joke, I shall give way.

Mr. Lubbock: Would it satisfy the hon. Gentleman if it were provided that inspection or testing by the police should not be carried out within half a mile or a mile of a public house?

Mr. Galbraith: No, that is not really the point. The police ought to have reasonable ground for suspecting not just that alcohol has been drunk but that alcohol beyond the prescribed limit has been drunk. Then there would be no fear either of personal victimisation or of the structure of a Gestapo State being evolved here almost unperceived.

Mrs. Castle: How on earth does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the constable should make his estimate? He is asking the police officer to have some basis for making an estimate that there has been more alcohol drunk than the prescribed limit allows, but the only way to ascertain that is by an objective measure such as the breath test.

Mr. Galbraith: But the Bill, as I read it, provides that a policeman has to have grounds for suspecting a person of having alcohol in his blood. I wish to go one stage further. I do not know how the policeman will do that. The right hon. Lady's objection applies just as much to her test as it does to mine, but my test is a refinement of her test.

Mrs. Castle: No.

Mr. Galbraith: However, this is a Committee point. I am merely putting it forward now.
It is perhaps appropriate to say at this stage that my hon. Friend who will wind up will be dealing with the legal implications of the Bill more fully. At this stage I would just say that we have some doubt about the fairness of treating offenders under this Act in the same way as the man who is, in addition, clinically impaired in a visible manner. The court should have some discretion to treat these cases on their merits with regard to the period of disqualification. To treat them as if they were the same is an example of the sort of unreasonableness which is an affront to people's sense of fairness and which ends up by alienating public support, which the right hon. Lady realises she must have.
It is important at this moment, when the Government are showing such an extraordinary degree of tenderness towards criminals of the grosser sort that they are even able to escape from prison, for the Government to be particularly careful when laying down penalties which may affect the ordinary, law abiding citizen, to do so in a reasonable way that will command instant understanding and respect.
From these somewhat turgid waters, I turn to what I am sure the Minister feels will be the calmer atmosphere of Part II of the Bill. Before I discuss its merits, I must put the right hon. Lady right as to the Bill's parentage. Undoubtedly she has delivered it, but its father is not, as she suggested in February, the right hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser). Although I do not like suggesting what may be an embarrassing liaison to the right hon. Lady, the Bill's father is none other than my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), whose energetic and non-partisan approach did so much to improve transport during the five years that he was Minister.

Mr. Charles Mapp: The last remarks of the hon. Gentleman test my patience. Am I not right in thinking that the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) was in 1960 unable to carry his party with him on what is now Part I of the Bill? It is tragic that the Opposition should introduce such sour remarks as we have been having today on a Bill which should be generally non-political.

Mr. Galbraith: I thought we had left Part I of the Bill and had got on to Part II. I was saying that my right hon. Friend, unlike the right hon. Lady with her Socialist prejudices, approached transport with an open mind. If I had said "pragmatically" it might have evoked a response from the right hon. Lady. My right hon. Friend approached it as a technical subject which required technical answers to the technical problems that it posed, and not a battleground for party dogma. It was, therefore, rather unfair of the right hon. Lady to say, as she did in February, that no firm plans were ever announced by the late Government. It was not only unfair


but also untrue. Speaking on 25th September, 1964, at the opening of the Commercial Motor Show, my right hon. Friend said:
So I now announce that I have approved positive plans for the establishment of an annual testing scheme for heavy goods vehicles on a nationwide basis.
Did the right hon. Lady really not know of this announcement when she made her first speech, or is it just another of her little slips, like her failure to provide a Minister in Committee the other day, that indicate a general weakening in her administrative competence?
In fact, the whole framework of Part II is in accordance with Tory principles of reform, and it was largely devised by my right hon. Friend, who was extremely energetic in this field. He was also most outspoken in what he had to say to the leaders of an industry which is still largely owned by private enterprise. If the right hon. Lady showed the same courage in castigating her friends in the unions who are holding the nation up to ransom by refusing to work the liner trains, we might have some faith in her ability to rise to the occasion, but so far I am sorry to say, there have been no signs of that.

Mrs. Castle: If the hon. Gentleman is widening the debate in this way—and apparently is permitted to do so—will he tell me what the views of the right hon. Gentleman for Wallasey were about road pricing?

Mr. Galbraith: I am dealing with the Bill, and everything that I have said so far has been connected with it. I have given examples of what happens when one does not have proper regard for freedom.
As it is, with all the talk of "cowboys" on the roads—that is not actually what the right hon. Lady has said, but we have heard it plenty of times before—following her recent trip to America, I believe that she rather fancies herself in the rôle of a female sheriff, armed with the six shooter provisions of the Bill, rounding up what Socialists too often regard as the private enterprise law-breakers.
But the interesting thing about these spot checks—I do not know whether the right hon. Lady has ever taken part in one—is that publicly-owned concerns

are often just as guilty of bad maintenance as the wildest of the cowboys. Indeed, one of the worst vehicles at a spot check that I attended was owned by a local authority which had had a Socialist council for more than 30 years, which only goes to show that public ownership is no guarantee whatsoever of responsible action.
The fact of the matter is that maintenance is not nearly as good as it should be, and though the accident record of lorries is relatively good—and let us pay tribute to them for it—the fact still remains that when accidents to lorries occur, the damage is usually extremely heavy because of the size of the vehicle involved. Therefore, in general we support the provisions in Part II of the Bill, and hope that when they are fully implemented they will lead to a reduction in lorry accidents.
Another advantage which the Minister may be unaware of is that Part II completely undermines the suggestion which is often made by Socialists, that in order to secure safety on the roads it is necessary to abolish competition. I understand that this was one of the reasons for not adopting the greater "free for all" advocated in the Geddes Report. But once the provisions in Part II are in force, all lorries, whether they belong to nationalised industries, large private concerns or single operators, will be equally safe, so the argument for public ownership as a safety precaution, which the spot checks certainly never bore out—the right hon. Lady did not say which lorries were defective, whether they were owned by public or private enterprises—will cease to have any validity, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will remember that when she comes to produce her Transport Bill. This does not mean that we should abolish the licensing procedure altogether. I am not sure that it could not be used to strengthen the provisions of the Bill.
At present I do not think that the penalties quite bite fairly or effectively enough. For example, the Bill creates an absolute liability to observe the various regulations. But is this really fair? Sometimes it is fate rather than negligence which is to blame. It should be a good defence to say that there was no negligence and that every possible precaution was taken.
Another unfair feature in the penalties—I realise that this is a partial criticism of our own 1962 legislation—is that a private operator can be doubly penalised, not only by having to pay fines but also by having his personal licence endorsed, whereas a public company does not suffer in this double way. It seems to me that punishment should not only fit the offence but should be the same for everyone and should not be less for the operator who, like the right hon. Lady, may not happen to have a licence to endorse. This makes me wonder why last year, when the spot checks produced over 13,000 immediate prohibitions—and this indicates that the vehicles were in a thoroughly dangerous state—only 175 licences were either revoked, suspended or curtailed. In an interesting article in in the Sunday Times on 18th September, one of the licensing authorities was reported as saying,
We could go a long way to cleaning up the industry.
I ask the right hon. Lady to consider, therefore, whether, as a complement to making the penalties fairer in the way I have suggested, there may not also be good grounds at the same time for stiffening the revocation procedure through licensing authorities. I dare say that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) would agree with me and, I hope, the right hon. Lady herself.
Most of the provisions in Part II are enabling and we shall want to know more of what is in the Minister's mind when we get into Committee. But there is a further matter that I wish to raise now. It concerns the provision of Government testing stations. Under Clause 17, regular inspection and maintenance by users will be required. Presumably this means that, if the job is done properly, adequate testing equipment must exist privately. If that is the case—and I do not see how the provisions of Clause 17 can be carried out unless there is adequate private equipment—I wonder whether it is necessary for the Government to duplicate this equipment at considerable cost by setting up a chain of State garages when part of the testing could be carried out in private garages and part in public garages.
I would be grateful to the right hon. Lady if she would consider this idea as

a method of doing the job possibly just as satisfactorily and saving public money. Again, where is the Minister to get the additional staff for testing? During the debate on the Bill in the last Parliament, she referred to the work of the industrial training boards in this respect. Will they be producing sufficient people?
When I was at the Ministry—although not occupying the same high office as the right hon. Lady does—there was a shortage of the sort of people required and for whom there is now to be a double demand from the operator as well as from the Ministry. Of course, in my day, the country had full employment. There was no unemployment then disguised slickly as a "shake-out". But if the effect of the Selective Employment Tax is indeed to shake out skilled men from the service industries, how does the right hon. Lady think that firms will be able to comply with her maintenance requirements?
This is another instance of inadequate planning. The Government's financial measures are aimed at reducing the service industries whereas their safety measures require a growth of the service industries. This is just a typical example of the sort of Government muddle the country is suffering from. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.
That brings me to the end of the Bill—but should it? This is a road safety Bill, yet it really has only two provisions. The first is to reduce accidents caused by drink and the other is to reduce accidents caused by faulty maintenance of lorries. These are important matters which are certainly worthy of attention, but they cover only a small part of the field and, however successful, they will not make a great deal of difference to the statistics.
Why, then, has the right hon. Lady not filled the gap caused by dropping random checks with other useful provisions? She has missed a great opportunity. She need not think that, because she once used to "romp" on these benches with the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Leader of the House, all she has to do today is to snap her fingers and she will get Parliamentary time whenever she wants it. She has missed her opportunity here.
It may be, of course, that she has no ideas on road safety, but she should have. In her first speech on the Bill in the last Parliament, she excused the absence of


measures to deal with the safety of private cars on the grounds that it would need fresh legislation. That was ten months ago and apparently nothing has been done to prepare it and to fill thereby the gap caused by dropping random checks. In the meantime, the Americans have devised safety regulations which seem likely, so our manufacturers say, to exclude British cars from the American market. All our manufacturers have to guide them are a few preliminary standards laid down three years ago by a far-sighted Conservative Government which at least had the sense to anticipate the future.
If the right hon. Lady is to achieve anything in road safety, she must be more energetic, more imaginative and more forward-looking. Above all, she must not just think, as she did today, in a restrictive sense. She must wield a broad brush, not the thin eyebrow pencil she has used in the Bill. What about the £14 million she cut from the road programme? Can she guarantee that these cuts will not perpetuate conditions causing as many accidents as we hope the Bill will save? It is not only drink or bad maintenance which cause accidents. Just as potent causes are frustration because of inadequate roads and traffic conflict because of insufficient one-way streets.
The advice which the right hon. Lady got from America was to think less about her black box and do more with her paint box. But then the right hon. Lady seems to have gone "swanning" to America not so much to learn anything as to give a preview of what her White Paper will look like when clothed in legislative form, and from reports reaching us here it seems to have been the flop that we expected it to be.
The right hon. Lady should think of more constructive ways to help. Why should not there be "courtesy cops" supervising lane discipline instead of ordinary policemen, who are in short supply, enforcing speed limits many of which are unrelated to modern traffic conditions? If the right hon. Lady really is looking for a revolution in social habits, what is she doing about education? [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but this is a serious matter. Raising the motor cyclists' age will do precious little good. It will merely retard the accident rate by a year. The right hon.

Lady should turn her mind to more effective means of training.
If the young and the old tend to be involved in more accidents, is it really right in a motorised society to consider putting them off the road altogether? Children and old people are not prevented from walking the streets because, in their different ways, they are a little unpredictable. The trouble is that when they are in a car they cannot be recognised, and I suggest that young drivers might display a large "P" for provisional and aged drivers a large "V" for veteran. In this way, other motorists would be able to recognise them on the road and treat them with the same consideration shown in everyday affairs.
If we want to get the full potential out of the motor car, coupled with a high degree of safety, it will come from ideas like these, designed to make the existing system work better and improve it. To place too much faith in restrictions is futile. It leads, appropriately enough, to the red flag mentality which we thought, until the right hon. Lady arrived on the scene, had been abandoned at the beginning of the century.
Because of the opportunities the right hon. Lady has missed, this is a very disappointing Bill. We will not, however, vote against the Second Reading because the little it does contain is worthwhile. Where we can we will try to expand it and, for the rest, I hope the right hon. Lady will not complain if we give the details of her rather meagre Measure a critical and irreverent scrutiny.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I am sure that most hon. Members must deplore some of the offensive remarks directed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) to my right hon. Friend. The fact that we did not interrupt him does not indicate that we were not offended by what he was saying. I would have thought that this was a Bill which we could all welcome. I was hoping that it would cut right across party politics and party barriers. There cannot be any responsible person inside or outside the House who does not want the Government to do all in their power to try to restrain reckless people who are in charge of lethal weapons on the road.
I give the Bill a very warm welcome, and I hope that it will have a very speedy passage through Committee and that it will not be long before it becomes law, so that the police, those whom we charge with the responsibility for dealing with these matters, will have all the powers they need to curb reckless individuals.
The Bill is long overdue, although it is true that a similar Measure was introduced in the House in the early part of the year and overtaken by the General Election. I notice that one hour and ten minutes of the time of the House has already been disposed of and in this very short debate my contribution will be brief and based on one or two facts which I believe to be worth putting on the record.
It is interesting to see from the statistics available to us just how the incidence of drunkenness and drunk driving have varied, rising slightly in the one case and alarmingly in the other. Since the war, we had the peak of convictions for drunkenness in 1962 and 1963, and it is a matter of some pleasure to be able to say that those figures have declined. The figure for 1965, the latest available, is 72,980. However, side by side with that decline there has been an alarming increase in drunkenness among younger people.
This has a lot to do with the reasons for the Bill. Some of us who have been driving motor cars for a very long time know of the "ton-up" gentlemen, as they call themselves, on the M-roads, those who go to public houses and afterwards pride themselves on "hopping" down an M-road at 100 miles an hour. The increase in the number of convictions for driving or being in charge of a vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs increased from 3,252 in 1957 to 9,116 in 1965, a most alarming increase. While the figures for convictions for drunkenness have declined during the last two or three years, the number of convictions for drunkenness among people under 21 has increased substantially.
I am a little critical of one thing which my right hon. Friend said. She seemed to be rather apologetic about the possibility of the police taking breath tests within the vicinity of public houses. She thought that that was an infringement

of the liberty of the subject. I know that this is delicate ground, but this is a subject on which I feel extremely keenly. I do no want there to be any undue infringement of the liberty of the subject, but I want drunken driving to be curbed. The dilemma is how to do that without unduly affecting the liberty of the subject.
It might be justifiable for the police to be entitled to take breath tests within a reasonable distance of a public house. I do not know what hon. Members feel about this. I have now been driving for about 30 years and I confess that the two hours in the 24 when I try to avoid driving my motor car are the hours between 10 and 12 midnight. That is the time of the greatest danger—when the public houses are emptying.
I am not nearly so frightened of the man who is drunk and who gets into his car and tries to drive it away and more often than not fails because he does not have command of it and runs into a lamp post or something else on the way. I am afraid of those who have had just enough drink to exhilarate them, to make them think that they can do something which they cannot do, just sufficient to impair their judgment when about to overtake. Those are the people about whom we have to worry and who are, mostly, the people who would be picked up if the police had authority to make these tests within the vicinity of public houses.
I am not pig-headed about this business. I do not object to anyone having a drink. Why should I? I do not think that there is any inherent sin in a man or a woman having a drink within the bounds of reason, and I do not want to impinge upon their liberties. On the other hand, we have a responsibility to the community and, if I may say so in the presence of a representative from the Home Office, I would like the Bill to contain penalties for the drunken pedestrian.

Mr. John Hall: The hon. Gentleman referred to the right of the police to apply tests within the vicinity of pubs. Would he not also apply that to people leaving clubs? In South Wales villages, for example, there are far more clubs than pubs, and in some villages there is a pub or a club every few yards.

Mr. Wilkins: It should apply to all places where intoxicants are available.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Including this place.

Mr. Wilkins: I will leave my hon. Friend to say that for himself. I make no distinctions whatever. If premises are licensed to sell intoxicating liquor, these provisions should apply to them.
We can become somewhat emotional about these subjects and talk about them for a very long time, but I promised to be brief. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has resisted invitations to bring down into what are called understandable terms what she means about the quantity of liquor which may be consumed.
Anyone who has made any observations on this subject will know that different people are affected differently by the quantities of drink which they take. I sometimes wonder whether the limit that the Minister has put into the Bill is not rather higher than I would like; but there it is, and it will apply to everyone. It will not be a question of how much a person can consume, it will be according to medical advice offered to the Minister.
I wish this Bill well, and I hope that it will not be unduly delayed in Committee. I hope that the House will ignore almost entirely the remarks which we have heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead, who did himself very little justice today. Most of us were pretty shocked at the manner of his attack. I hope that this Bill will proceed as rapidly as possible and soon become the law of the land.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely in his argument. I do not like the idea of setting up police traps outside public houses or clubs, or even the House of Commons. This is likely to lead to more difficulties, but I hope that this point will be dealt with more fully in the winding-up. It is almost nine months since the Road Safety Bill received its Second Reading in the last Parliament. This has given all of us ample time to

reflect. The Government have, in my view quite rightly, completely changed their mind on the question of the random checks, and I would like to thank the Minister very much for her change of heart.
I am sorry to see that there are now no Ministers representing the Ministry of Transport on the Front Bench. It is a pity, in view of the importance of this debate. My hon. Friends and I certainly do not seek to "twit" the Minister in any way, but I know that she will not mind my saying how much we have appreciated her change of heart, because she does not appear to enjoy taking advice from this side of the House. I am sure that she is right in her decision about random checks, because fundamentally, this Bill will depend for its success upon the co-operation of the motoring public. May I express the hope that, having taken our advice on this occasion, she will do so on other occasions, because I can assure her that we shall have a great deal of advice to offer.

Mr. David Weitzman: I hope the hon. Member will appreciate that such advice was not given only from that side of the House. It was also given from this side.

Mr. Awdry: It was widespread advice, given by many organisations and many people, and I am merely glad that the Minister took it.
The Standing Committee on this Bill had only one effective sitting in the last Parliament. It very soon became clear during that sitting that a totally new point emerged, which had not come up during the Second Reading.
The point concerns the relationship between the new offence created by the Bill and the existing offence of driving when one's ability is impaired through drink. This raised an important point of principle, and it is my concern that the Government should be clear about this and about their intentions in this respect. Under this Bill we are creating a completely new offence and a test which is experimental in its nature. No one can claim that the test is 100 per cent. scientifically accurate, and no one can say with


certainty that the figure of 80 milligrammes is necessarily a fair figure. On page 10 of the White Paper, one reads:
The Medical Research Council have considered the evidence about the association between the consumption of alcohol and impairment of driving ability and the recommendation of the B.M.A. They have concluded that the consumption of alcohol in amounts sufficient to cause a blood alcohol concentration of 50 mg./100 ml."—
that is the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I am sorry that he is not here—
or more would impair driving ability in an appreciable proportion of drivers, and that when the amount of alcohol consumed results in a concentration in the blood of 80 mg./100 ml. or more, driving ability would be impaired in the great majority of drivers.
That statement implies that there must be a small minority of drivers whose driving ability would not be impaired; yet those drivers will automatically be convicted under this Bill. We all know that the amount of alcohol that a person has to drink to produce a given concentration in the blood varies enormously, according to many factors, including his health, weight, whether he has drunk before or after a meal, and how quickly the drink has been taken.
I know that the Minister is very cagey about giving any examples, and I appreciate her reluctance, but the prescribed limit of 80 milligrammes can represent as little as two or two and a half pints of beer drunk in a short period, or three double whiskies. None of us, on either side of the House, wants to encourage people to drink and then to drive, but all of us know many people who can drink two or two and a half pints of beer fairly rapidly and drive perfectly safely.
It is only fair and commonsense to say that the new offence created by the Bill should be regarded as a separate offence to the existing offence of driving when one's ability to do so is impaired through drink, and that the new offence should attract different penalties, particularly with regard to disqualification.
In the only Standing Committee sitting on the last Bill, it was quite clear that the Government did not share our view. They contended that the new offence should attract exactly the same

penalty as the existing one. The Government have had second thoughts about random checks, and I hope that they will also agree to change their approach to this point, which I believe to be an even more important one, and, moreover, one of principle.
I have had a certain amount of experience in representing defendants on driving charges in magistrates' courts and of instructing counsel before quarter sessions, in relation to serious driving offences. All of my experience teaches me that it is wrong to try in any way to fetter the discretion of the courts when it comes to fixing penalties. No two cases are alike, and it is better to give flexibility to the courts rather than to tie their hands on the matter of punishment.
This is particularly so in the case of disqualification, because a disqualification for 12 months upon a person using his car in the course of his work is a very great punishment. It is rightly so because it is used to deal with a serious offence, but no one can doubt that this new offence is going to catch a great many drivers who would never have been charged under the law as it stands.
As the Minister said on Second Reading in February, in the last quarter of 1964, in the Metropolitan Police district, one-third of the drivers committed for trial who were shown to have a blood content of over 200 milligrammes were found not guilty and nearly half of those with a blood concentration of over 150 milligrammes were acquitted. Under this Bill all people with a concentration of 80 milligrammes will not only be prosecuted but will automatically be guilty. This is going to cause a great deal of injustice, because many people will not know that they are comitting an offence.

The Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): So that I may be quite clear about what the hon. Member has in mind, is he suggesting that it is right that those with a blood concentration of 150 or 200 milligrammes should be acquitted?

Mr. Awdry: No. What I am saying is that the new offence will bring into the net many people who would not only not have been found guilty, but who would not even have been charged. It is absolutely right that there should be


mandatory disqualification for those who drive when it is plain that their driving is impaired because of drink. But this new offence will catch some people—perhaps only a few—whose driving is not impaired but who do have 80 milligrammes of alcohol in their system.
It is, therefore, right to regard this offence separately, and it would be wrong to make disqualification a mandatory and automatic penalty in every case. In some cases, the magistrates could still disqualify but under the Bill everyone would automatically lose his licence for 12 calendar months if he committed the new offence. Some people will not know that they have committed an offence, and their driving might not be impaired.
I hope than hon. Gentlemen will not think that, in trying to draw this distinction between the new offence and the old one, I am in any way condoning driving under the influence of drink. Of course, I am not. I want the Bill—which will become an Act as we are not opposing it -to be respected. I want the Bill to have good publicity. Naturally, all of us deplore the suffering and the tragedy behind the appalling road casualty figures. It is in that spirit that I suggest modifications to the Bill which would be an improvement to a much-needed Measure. I therefore wish it well.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). Although I do not agree with much of what he said, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), I can say that it was certainly a better speech than the one we had from the hon. member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). It is a pity that he made that obviously political speech on this Bill. All of us—myself more than any other, perhaps—love to "have a go" at making political capital whenever the opportunity presents itself, but there are occasions when one does not do so. I suggest, with respect, that this is one of those occasions. There will be plenty of opportunities for hon. Members opposite to "have a go" at the Minister—and all the hon. Members in the Ministry of Transport. No doubt she would welcome it, and so would we all. But this is not the time or the occasion.
The Bill is a very good one. In supporting it, I would say that it does not go far enough. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Chippenham should put forward the theory that because a road user or driver has driven—like my hon. Friend and myself—perhaps for 30 years or more and does not understand what the penalty is, he should not suffer a severe penalty if he is caught. First, he should not be caught, and, secondly, if he did not drink he could not be caught. I can honestly say that I have been driving 30 years and have never yet been caught speeding. But that does not mean that if I were caught once in 33 years I could plead that I should not be summonsed nor have my licence taken away or endorsed. The hon. Member for Chippenham, who is a solicitor, will agree that if he put that case to the court he would not get very far. His client would still be fined and his licence endorsed——

Mr. Awdry: That was not the case which I was putting, with respect. What I said was that the hon. Member might have drunk three pints of beer and would therefore have 80 milligrammes of alcohol in his bloodstream. He might be caught by the police although he was still able to drive.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member is underwriting what I am saying. I can drive 40 or 50 miles an hour in a 30-mile-an-hour speed limit, and I probably could have done it—I hope that this will not be held against me—on numerous occasions. I could say that my driving has never been impaired because I have never had an accident while doing it. But if I were caught on one occasion, it would be no defence to say that I had been doing this for 34 years almost every day of the week and that because my driving had never been impaired and I had not had an accident I should be treated leniently on this one occasion and the penalty should not be imposed. It is a very good argument, but I cannot subscribe to it, and I am sure that the courts would not agree with it.
This Bill is not onerous, either in the first part or in the second part. I do not think that it is strict or severe enough. As it is at the moment, if I committed a traffic offence and the police pulled me


up, they could tell me that I was committing that offence and warn me, but they would have no power to arrest me or to stop me carrying on that offence.

Clause 2 now gives authority to a uniformed constable who has reason to believe that a person is inebriated to arrest that person without warrant if he refuses to take a test or if the test proves the constable's suspicions. I could not disagree with that, but I go further. I would say that if the uniformed policeman has reason to believe that a driver is committing an offence, he should not only warn him and stop him but should take away that man's right to carry on that offence, and if necessary, arrest him.

What happens now? If a policeman sees someone driving without a licence or insurance, he can tell him that it is an offence and that he will be prosecuted, but no attempt is made to stop him and he could carry on doing so for the next two or three years. That is wrong. If the man suspected by a policeman were a burglar and the policeman saw him attempting to break into a house, I am sure that the policeman would not allow the burglar to carry on with the offence.

However, with the exception of this proposal, it will be possible for a driver to break the law, receive a warning and to carry on breaking the law for as long as he wishes. Even after having been charged or summonsed and having paid his fine, he may still carry on breaking the law.

What will happen in future? I agree that there are many good proposals in the Bill, including those that trade vehicles will be liable to be stopped and will have to have labels on them specifying their safe loading limit, that there are to be spot checks and annual testing stations. This is all very well, but how will it be enforced? We now have a four-year road test but no check is made at the moment on that test.

If a vehicle has not been tested—and there are many such vehicles on the road today—for the last five, six or seven years, neither the Ministry of Transport nor the Home Office have any record of that fact. The only way such people are found out is when they happen to break another law—kill someone, have a smash-up, or something like that. Then the

police, in taking particulars, and probably intending to prosecute him for that offence, will ask, "When did you last have a road fund licence?" The man may say, "Two years ago". He may give the same answer when asked when he last insured the vehicle and when it was last tested for roadworthiness. Even though we have the four-year road test—following the five-year test—the Ministry have no record of details of that sort. What will be the position under the Bill.

We are told that we are to have these vehicle testing stations, and that all trade vehicles will have their laden weight exhibited and will carry a roadworthiness test certificate. Who is to enforce that provision? How will it operate? I believe that two-thirds of vehicles are at present more than four or five years old, and have no road test certificate. The only time the matter is checked is when, and if, the person seeks a renewal of his road fund licence. He then has to produce with his certificate of insurance his—as it is now—four-year test certificate. But if he wants to save £17 10s. by not getting a road fund licence, as many now do, he can get away with having no insurance and no road test certificate.

My right hon. Friend, or any of the Ministers should take a Sunday morning off from their duties and go to any parking square. Let them go to the world-famous Petticoat Lane, or to Club Row, any Sunday morning at about 10 o'clock and they will see dozens and dozens of commercial and private vehicles that have neither road fund licence, test certificate nor insurance. One may say to a policeman, "Officer, I know that this vehicle has not been licensed for the last three years—will you take some action? He will probably answer," We have so much of it we cannot bother about it. It is going on all the time. We do not have the time. If we did this, we would be doing nothing else."

A few weeks ago I went into Tottenham Police Station. A narrow road, used by buses, adjoins the police station and I saw double banking on both sides—hundreds of vehicles belonging to people who had gone to the Royal Dance Hall. I saw vehicles by the hundred parked on both sides of the road—this way, that way, backwards, forwards, all ways.

Many of them, if not most of them, did not have a road fund licence or test certificate. Most of them had their lights out although the road is a bus route. The police could not have cared less. When I revealed my identity, the sergeant said, "We will take particulars." We did that, and then filled in a form. The sergeant asked me, "Would you be prepared to give evidence?" I replied, "Certainly". That was in the early part of the year—and I am still waiting.

I agree with all these proposed measures, but if we are to have them, let us see that they are enforced. It is wrong for the Minister and the Ministry to say, as they do, that only a few thousand such vehicles are on the road. I am told today that 30,000 vehicles have been reported in the last quarter in London alone for not having proper registration. Let us have these regulations, but let them be enforced. Otherwise we are being unfair to the loyal, good driver who pays his road fund money, sees that his car has the four-year test, goes through all the various procedures and keeps his car in good order. Incidentally, that man also puts his parking fee in the meter—if he can get at one, because invariably the meter spaces are occupied by vehicles that, according to the law, should not be on the road at all. The Minister tells us about these testing stations, and I am all in favour of testing, but he should also tell us where he is to get the enforcement staff. If he can satisfy us on that point, I shall be very happy, because then we shall be improving the vehicles now on the road—and, believe me, there is room for improvement.

Many vehicles on the road are being driven dangerously, but the Minister should also bear in mind the growing, illegal practice of leaving unlicensed derelict vehicles on the highway. They are supposed to be licensed even if they are not in use, but they can be found in almost any road. If a policeman's attention is drawn to such a car he will say, "That has been there for about 12 or 18 months. It is not in use." If one points out to him that it should not stand there unlicensed, he will reply, "Well, we cannot do anything about that."

What happens as a result? In my constituency, I have had three cases of kiddies having their faces blown to smithereens. Children see derelict cars

standing and play about with them. We know they should not but, kiddies being what they are, they probably start playing with the gear lever and end by dropping matches down the petrol tank. We know they should not do it, but it is done, for example, on Guy Fawkes Night. In any case, these are just kiddies. As I say, on three occasions in my constituency children have had their faces blown in.

If the Minister is making fresh regulations, and I agree with those proposed, let us be assured that he will also see to it that the existing regulations are carried out. They are not being carried out at the moment. If I am put on the Standing Committee I will seek to strengthen this Bill by Amendments to these regulations, and will seek to have others inserted.

5.28 p.m.

Sir Clive Bossom: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has got away with many things for the past 33 years or so, and I congratulate him on his own excellent record. He has asked some very pertinent questions which the Minister will find difficult to answer. I, too, welcome this second edition of the Bill, but had hoped that during the interim period since 10th February it could have been greatly enlarged and improved. No matter how one looks at the Bill it is still a little Bill, yet it seeks to deal with one of the major problems of our society—road safety and the saving of human lives.
In her closing remarks, the right hon. Lady said something which was quite right. We shall not create better safety by more and more legislation. However, there are several pieces of legislation which would would have strengthened and greatly improved the Bill if they had been added to it.
In road accidents, there are three major factors, one or more of which can be the main cause of every accident. It is either the driver, the vehicle or the road.
Let us take the driver first. He has been partly dealt with in the Bill now that the random checks proposed in the Road Traffic Bill have been removed. The Bill is a much more effective one, as it will carry public opinion with it.


In addition, it is more fair to the police. No one can object to being tested if his behaviour gives reasonable cause to the police to suspect that he has alcohol in his body. However, the words "reasonable cause to suspect" must be watched very carefully. It must not be abused by the police. That is a matter which I feel can be cleared up in Committee, but it is something about which the general public is still worried.
The nation is becoming conscious at last of the danger of taking alcohol or drugs. No one has said enough about drugs. Today, unfortunately, many of our young people take drugs, and alcohol added on top of drugs makes it far worse. I really believe the message has got home at last about drink and driving.
One has only to go into any country pub and, on a shelf behind the bar, one will see a do-it-yourself testing kit for sale. I have two excellent examples by my side which can be bought in most pubs in the country. However, I want to say a word of warning about breathalysers, because they are still not foolproof or 100 per cent. accurate. At least 15 minutes should elapse after taking a drink before you take the test, otherwise the reading given will be much higher than actually present.
I hope, too, that we do not become a nation of hypochondriacs. I understand that such things as "alcohol pills" have been produced in Austria and Hungary in the form of a capsule containing a pink powder. The idea is to take it before drinking. I know a man who consumed four large glasses of cognac and, on a blood sample, found an alcohol reduction of about 45 per cent. I think that the police are aware of such pills. They are not on sale here, but it is something that we have to watch carefully, because people will always try to find ways and means of getting round the law.
It is a great pity that the Minister stated a prescribed limit on 10th February, and I was delighted to hear her say this afternoon that she has withdrawn that limit of six pints of beer or six large whiskies. I agree with her that it is an extremely bad yardstick, because alcohol affects different people in different ways. Unfortunately, though,

the damage has already been done. Talking to sensible motorists and other people in pubs, I find that many people think that they can drink six large whiskies and then drive. That is a great pity, and I hope that publicity will be given to the fact that there is not a limit, as was said on 10th February.
It was announced the other day that tests for alcohol will be made on motorists and motor cyclists killed in accidents. I think that pedestrians killed in accidents should also be tested, because it is not always the motorist or motor cyclist who is at fault. One could get some very false figures, especially at Christmas time, of who is to blame for an accident. I hope that the Minister will look into this. It is a sensible thing to have tests on motorists and motor cyclists, but also let us have the pedestrians.
As this is a Road Safety Bill, I should have liked to see a Clause included dealing with jay-walking pedestrians. In most other countries, pedestrians are trained to obey the rules of the road, but they are not in this country. Granted the Minister has made a start in the right direction, but we need some really tough legislation, because pedestrians in our towns and cities have got away with murder for years. They still take hardly any notice of signs, lights or even paint on the roads. A Clause dealing with them could have been added to this type of Bill.
Having dealt with drivers, I turn next to vehicles. Part II deals with goods vehicles, the limit of weight allowed to be carried and checks for maintenance. I should have liked to see laid down a three-year test for all vehicles, because brakes, lighting and tyres on most vehicles are not 100 per cent. and usually, I am afraid, they are badly maintained. Such a piece of legislation could not start to operate until the Government have recruited and trained many more testers, but it is something at which the Ministry should aim, so that in the long run vehicles are tested every 3 years.
I should have liked to see legislation against the repaired written-off cars which are becoming a real menace to safety on our roads. I should have liked to see, too, some legislation dealing with exhaust fumes. Fumes cause accidents because, due to sheer desperation, motorists


take reckless risks to overtake vehicles belching out black fumes. Another piece of legislation which I should have liked to see is something dealing with dipped headlights. I am convinced that most side lights today are only suitable as parking lights.
As we are considering a Road Safety Bill, and safety is at last becoming a number one selling point, with price and speed no longer being the only things that count when buying a car, the Bill would have been an ideal opportunity to lay down stringent new safety standards. Our Road Research Laboratory is greatly envied in America and other European countries. Surely it could have laid down standards for British manufacturers. The Government have gone halfway already by fitting safety belts in new cars. I should have liked to see it made compulsory for all front seat occupants to wear them. Safety belts can reduce serious accidents by 70 per cent., if they are worn.
There are several more built-in safety measures which the Minister could have written into her Bill. T should have liked to see laid down a minimum standard for the force which can be absorbed by a car in a collision without buckling the passenger compartment. Then there are safety standards which could be laid down for the insides of vehicles. There are too many sharp edges, and hard surfaces, jutting out mirrors and steering columns which do not swing forward on impact. We need better standards in our cars, and these could have been written into the Bill. If we could claim to build the safest cars in the world, that would be a wonderful selling point in any export market. It must not be forgotten that the Americans are now insisting on built-in safety devices on new cars. Any car without them cannot be sold in the United States, and that is something which will affect us in a few months' time if we hope to continue selling our cars there.
I was disappointed not to see any mention of safety for motor cycles. There are four casualties for every million miles travelled by cars, seven for every million miles travelled by bicycles, and 19 for every million miles travelled by motor cycles, yet there is no legislation for motor cycles in the Bill. I believe that the time has come when we should make

the wearing of crash helmets compulsory, and the Bill would have been a good opportunity for doing it. All new motor cycles should be fitted with non-lock braking systems, because so many accidents are due to bad braking and poor tyres.
I have dealt with drivers and vehicles. So far, I have said nothing about roads. They are still a major factor in many accidents, unfortunately they cannot feature in this Bill. So I ask the Minister whether she will continue to press on with new roads, bypasses and flyovers, and get the Government to try to recruit more mobile traffic police and traffic engineers. The Government ought also to provide more driving instructors and instruction in all our schools. We must teach them young. We must get at people at school and teach them about road safety.
I welcome most of the Bill. But as I have tried to point out it does not begin to go far enough. Last year nearly 8,000 people were killed, and 400,000 injured on our roads. We must, therefore, do something about this problem.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom). I agree with the principle that he mentioned, namely, that in this Bill we ought to ensure that if there is an accident involving a motorist and a pedestrian there is equality of legislative treatment between the two. I do not think that we shall be acting fairly if we concentrate exclusively on the driver. It may be that, on balance, I am a more foolish man when I am behind the wheel of a car than I am when I am walking, but if we want to see this through to the end we must be fair, and in Committee we must make sure that the Bill is seen to be fair.
If, during the hours of darkness, on a wet dirty night, a somewhat inebriated pedestrian suddenly lunges off the pavement into the middle of the road and is hit by a car, it will be a grave error if his breath is not the subject of an inquiry, just as will happen in respect of the unfortunate driver who, although he, too, may have been drinking, still has reasonable control of his vehicle.
In another frame of mind, I could well move the rejection of the Bill. I think


that the House must consider the major premise involved. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) gave us a number of figures which forced us to conclude that enforcement of the law in general, and in particular the law with regard to driving, is by no means what it should be. I think that we are all guilty of the same moral offence in that. We are loading the Statute Book still further with a number of obligations which, quite frankly, the police will not be able to meet. Let us be quite frank about it. I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is here. He ought to protest about the situation when the facts brought to the notice of the House warrant it.
We have a police force which is involved primarily in looking for what I might perhaps call serious criminal offenders. How can we expect its officers to spend as much time as they are expected to do on coping with traffic and other comparatively minor problems? The time is long overdue for the Home Secretary to come to a decision about whether we are to have separate traffic police. This problem has arisen under both Governments, and we continue to overload our police forces without recognising that a separate traffic corps is necessary. Such a corps could consist of older policemen, among whom nimble-ness would not be the first requisite, and who would not have to be at the height of their athletic ability.
Anyone who has knowledge as a magistrate, or who has acquired similar knowledge from going to the courts, realises that since 1959 there has been a schism between the Ministry of Transport and the Home Department. This problem has been with us under both Tory and Labour Governments, and it is high time that it was resolved. Until it is, we shall continue to be faced with legislation based on good intentions.
The intentions behind this Measure are good. In fact, they are what I had hoped for, and what the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) hoped for in 1962 when we discussed similar matters in Committee upstairs. The only irritant speech that we have

heard this afternoon was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). I hope that the hon. Member will not again try to throw such an irritant into this debate. I am glad that our discussion has taken the form that it has, and has not become a political issue in the narrow context.
I have always taken the view that spot checks are basically wrong. I do not want to be stopped by the police, but I recognise the right of the policeman to stop me if he thinks that he has good reason for doing so. My objection to spot checks is that I cannot for the life of me think why we should think of instituting them among, say, 10 million motorists in this country when we do not have enough policemen to carry out the jobs that they are required to do now. How can we possibly ask them to take on the duty of carrying out spot checks on people leaving clubs, or pubs, or other drinking places, or even on people leaving this Palace? I am glad that spot checks are now a non-starter and that the police will be able to do in future what they do now.
If there is a small larceny in my district, or for that matter a major one, the police do not come and ask me what I was doing at about the time the offence occurred. They go to the person whom they have reason to suspect might have been involved, and question him, and that is the sort of thing that we should be doing in the Bill.

Mr. William Molloy: I do not think that that is a fair analogy. A burglar would not thank a policeman for preventing him from breaking into somebody's house, but a reasonable man, when sober, would thank a policeman for not having allowed him to drive his car.

Mr. Mapp: It is a question of the enforcement of the law. In my early youth, I used to walk home from Manchester at about midnight because I was engaged on late night duty. On occasions, quite rightly, I was stopped by the police, because that is the hour at which they can normally expect a potential criminal to be abroad. I have no objection to that kind of thing, nor should we as citizens object to it. My point is that it is a sheer waste of time to talk about spot checks, because the plain fact is


that the police will not be able to carry them out.
I propose now to say something about goods vehicles. Before coming to the House I was engaged in the maintenance and operation of a fairly large vehicle fleet. Some parts of the Bill have teeth, and some do not. Public service garages must allow Ministry inspectors access to them to carry out any inquiries which they consider necessary. So far as I can see, the Bill does not give Ministry inspectors the right to enter commercial garages where there may be fleets of vehicles. If we say that Manchester Corporation, or the London Transport Board, must allow its vehicles to be examined by inspectors, we should ensure that such inspectors are entitled to enter commercial garages and inspect the vehicles housed there.
I want to make a special plea in this regard. I want the inspectorate to be independent, and adequately staffed. I represent a town on the west side of the Pennines, but my experience must be common to that of many other Members whose constituencies are either on hills or at the foot of hills. Time and time again vehicles have come down from the Pennines, their brakes having failed, with disastrous consequences. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the necessity for some of these garages to be placed in areas where difficulties and disasters of this kind may occur.
There is one omission in the Bill. It may be that in a few months' time I shall see, on the back of heavy goods vehicles, plates stating whether they are six-tonners, twelve-tonners or whatever it may be. It should like to know why the Bill contains no provision for a similar plate denoting the maximum permissible speed for these vehicles. The average driver is very interested and helped with such information.

Mr. Lubbock: Clause 7(1,b) provides for the marking on vehicles not only of weights but of other particulars. Surely that would include particulars of the maximum speed.

Mr. Mapp: I have noticed those words. I should like to have the optimism of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), but I doubt whether the Minister will be able to assure the House today that this is part of her intentions.

I doubt whether such a powerful provision could come in on a side-wind. If it is to, I shall be very pleased. I certainly think that this and similar improvements should be made to the Bill.

Clause 21 enables the Minister to provide testing stations. I do not want to get into an argument for or against private testing stations, but I hope that the Government will take note of the system which operates in Western Germany, There the whole system of teaching L-drivers and the drivers of public service vehicles, as well as of certifying the roadworthiness of vehicles, is carried out by a Government-sponsored body, broadly free of Government control. This allows a reasonable degree of discipline in the training of drivers and their continuing certification afterwards, besides ensuring the effectiveness of the components of a vehicle on the road. Such a system might remedy the existing situation in this country under which some of our garages fail in their duties, and I hope that the Minister will study the West German practice in order to see to what extent it can be applied here.

5.54 p.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I was glad to see the Minister move the Second Reading of the Bill and to hear the sincerity with which she spoke, which showed that she was very alive to the need to improve safety on the roads. When I initiated a debate on 4th February she was unfortunately unable to be present. I know that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) always speaks with great sincerity on road safety matters, and I found myself in a great deal of agreement with what was said by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). This is not a subject on which there should be any party disagreement. It seems that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) has been won over to the need to investigate different ways to increase road safety. I only wish that when he was a Minister he had not been so obstructive to a Bill which would have licensed driving schools, and which I tried to get through the House.
It seems to me that, bringing this Measure in after nine months, the Government have missed an opportunity of adding one or two more provisions to it. The Minister gave an estimate of the


number of accidents that might be prevented. The provisions of the Bill will make some indentation into this appalling figure but I hope that she will never be complacent. As a nation, we are far too callous and indifferent to road deaths and to the vast amount of suffering that is involved in relation to those who are seriously injured, besides the enormous amount of time which nurses, doctors and ambulance drivers have to spend to deal with the situation and the enormous financial loss involved to this country, now running at over £250 million a year.
The country was shaken to its core by the disaster at Aberfan a few weeks ago, perhaps all the more so because it was felt that that disaster should not have occurred. But is not that the case with most accidents? I do not need to remind the House of all the publicity which was given, quite rightly, to that disaster, but the number of people killed in it was only a few more than the number killed on the roads in one week. We always think that accidents will happen to other people and not to ourselves. They have hap-pended to past and present Members of this House. The possibilities have been vividly brought home to me. I have a son aged 30, and three of his friends, of his age, have recently been killed in road accidents—one merely standing on the road outside his house. These were men at the beginning of their commercial lives—representative of some of our most competent and useful citizens.
Many societies give advice to the Minister. Some of them come forward with good ideas. But there are certain vested interests which try to hold back legislative reform, for one reason or another. I now turn to the Bill. The vast majority of good drivers—and that is over 75 per cent.—besides the public generally will welcome powers to deter people who are under the influence of drink from driving their cars. Some people have been upset about infringing individual liberty but I, as a Conservative, have always agreed with my party's principle that the greater good of the majority overrides that of the individual citizen. Nevertheless, we must see that every individual has freedom, fairness and justice.
In this connection I want to refer to a case that occurred in Ottawa, concerning

a man who was found to have alcohol in his blood to an extent just beyond the limit. He was involved in no accident, but the police had their suspicions. He was fined £60. I mention this case as an illustration of the way in which other countries deal with the situation.

Clause 5 deals with public service vehicles and adapts certain provisions to cover armed forces overseas. I should like to know whether it covers personnel of foreign Powers whose Service men or civilians are in this country. I have a particular interest in asking this, since there is a large American Air Force base at Brentwaters, in my constituency. Many of its personnel drive as civilians. I do not say that they are better or worse drivers than the ordinary citizens of this country, but I feel that they should be equally subject to our laws.

Although drink is a cause of many accidents it is far from being the sole cause of making people bad drivers. Statistics show that sometimes too much blame is placed upon people who drive under the influence of alcohol. Other characteristics make people bad drivers. Some people are aggressive and inconsiderate in their ordinary lives, and they make bad drivers. A man, by nature, may be very weak and timid, but when he gets behind the wheel of a car he feels himself to be of some importance, and the realisation that he has a lethal weapon in his hands brings out all his latent characteristics of aggression. Each of us drives better on one day than on another. Sometimes we may be in a temper; something may have happened to upset us. But the worst class of driver is the aggressive thug criminal, who seems to delight in violence and who is constantly taking other people's cars and driving them away. I would really have liked to have seen legislation automatically suspending the licence of a person convicted of thuggery.

The basis behind all this is better instruction. Referring to Part II of the Bill, anything which is done to make goods vehicles safer on our roads must have the approval of the House.

A number of points—some suitable for the Committee stage—occur to me. I should like to ask the Minister, when winding up the debate, to tell us whether


attention has been paid to loads extending over the ends of lorries, to such vehicles being illuminated at night and to having reflectors attached down their sides as standard equipment. This is very important when vehicles come out of side turnings on to a main road. I am particularly pleased to see power to stop overloaded vehicles from proceeding further along a road.

The Bill follows the common or modern practice of giving the Minister powers to make Regulations under many Clauses rather than stating them all in the Bill. I welcome the very good description in Clause 19 of the many circumstances set out in the Bill where these will be necessary. I should like to know rather more about Clauses 18 and 19 concerning the testing of drivers of heavy goods vehicles and the training facilities for drivers before they take the test. The Minister has reassured me that the test will be carried out by the Ministry's own examiners. How will these examiners be trained? Will they have had personal experience of driving lorries with heavy loads?

I am pleased that the Minister said there will be various centres, although I do not think she said how many there would be throughout the country. I should like, without being pedantic, to ask the Minister about Clause 18. Why has the licensing authority suddenly become male? Is it because the Minister is female, or are we following the French in making authorities male or female? Clause 18(2) says:
… the licensing authority…unless he is satisfied that the applicant for the licence …

Is it due to the link up with the French and the future Channel Tunnel that we now have this "male" tribute to a licensing authority?

Under Clause 19(1, c) the Minister recognises that the heavy duty vehicle driver should be examined on the type of vehicle, unloaded or loaded, that he is likely to drive. This is a wise provision. We all know of cases of the ordinary young person who passes his test in an 8 h.p. car and he is immediately qualified to drive a Jaguar or a speedy sports car. I should like the Minister to say a little more about the amount of fee for the licence that the man will have to pay. Once a licence has been obtained for a particular type of vehicle, will a

man on leaving one firm and going to another—and this happens with many lorry drivers—still be able to drive heavy duty vehicles? If so, would it be in the same category as the vehicle the man was tested on? Will there be a compulsory retiring age of 65, or will a man have to undergo a re-test on reaching that age if he wishes to continue working as a long-distance driver?

I should like to reassure the Minister that this testing, properly carried out, can lead only to good results. However, it is raising many new points and as I have identified myself very much in debates in this House with driving instruction generally, I feel that we should not let this go through unquestioned.

The Minister must recognise that there is a case—long-term, perhaps—if we can improve the status of driving instructors and their schools, that the whole testing of drivers might well be carried out by such a body, just as the examinations of barristers-at-law, solicitors, accountants and doctors, are carried out, not by the State, but by their own individual professional bodies. This might take a heavy load off the Ministry.

I therefore give a qualified blessing to the Bill as far as it goes. I am sure that most of the points will be discussed in Committee. As the Bill is linked with better driving, by both private individuals and lorry drivers, I should like to ask the Minister why it was not found possible to include compulsory registration of driving schools, of which I have spoken so often, and of making the test for driving instructors, which is now voluntary—having started only in 1964 after the 1962 Act—compulsory.

I know there has been much discussion at the Ministry with the various bodies concerned and I believe that much headway has been made. I am disappointed that sufficient headway has not been made to enable it to be included in the Bill. We know that any other legislation, before it becomes law, will be at least 18 months off. From my researches I am certain that until we get the very best qualified instruction and extra tuition as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom)—and the public are demanding this—we shall continue to have on our roads accidents which are not really necessary and which result in loss of life and limb.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I understand that the debate has to be somewhat restricted. It is a great shame, because it is an extraordinarily important debate. Therefore, I will restrict the few things that I have to say and will be as swift as I can. Fortunately, many of the points I should have liked to make were made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison). I am bound to say that I have always been able to go along with him in many of the recommendations which he has made. I hope we can form an alliance in getting the Minister and the Government to carry out many of the things which we should like carried out.
In the various debates on driving instruction and road safety generally, there has always been extraordinary good humour and very keen interest in what was said. The debates have been notable because of the lack of animosity. On a number of occasions I have had to cross swords with the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) and Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), but it was about an issue under discussion and about nothing else.
Therefore, I thought that a most incredible speech was made this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). I have been interested in these debates for the past few years. I have participated in some of them and listened to nearly all of them, and I found the hon. Member's approach this afternoon both repugnant and reprehensible. All through his mouldy speech he was trying to pepper it with cheap political points, nasty personal jibes, to make up the fact, I suppose, that the remainder of it was inane, inept, and inapposite. His execrable behaviour only damaged the good name the House will need when it seeks to come to grips with the problems of human content which we are discussing this afternoon.
We are discussing what we can do to try to prevent a most unnecessary, as well as a most unforgivable, type of accident, namely, that caused by the drunken driver. We have heard the evidence which has been submitted, and we have probably read, from the B.M.A. as to the certain level of alcohol within the body which can be acceptable. But

I hope we will never give up saying that, irrespective of how much alcohol it might be permissible to drink, the first drink is the wrong one to have taken in the first place. If we do not accept that, we are contributing to the fact that we do not really mean it when we say, "If you are going to drive, don't drink". This must be the golden rule, and I believe we must not depart from it. The House and the country should feel ashamed at having to acknowledge so many terrible accidents. More civilians have been killed by road accidents since the war than were killed by the agencies of Adolf Hitler during the war. We have inflicted this slaughter upon ourselves. We have slain more of our own civilians since the war than the bombs of the Axis movement killed in Britain during the war. This is a sobering thought. It should make us gasp.
Cognisance must certainly be paid to arguments about curtailing the freedom of the individual. We must ensure that nothing is done which endangers this freedom. However, there is a danger of going the other way. There will always be the "nut-case" who will seek to drive on the righthand side of the road, claiming that he is merely exercising his freedom as a citizen. One would not mind his doing this and exercising 100 per cent. freedom if he were the only one to suffer, but the agony often is that the person who suffers from such action is an innocent person who is willing to concede a certain amount of personal freedom and yet maintain the law himself.
Therefore, I hope Ministers will not be too mealy-mouthed about this. If there is to be a choice between this constant slaughter on the roads and a certain diminuation in the freedom of drivers or pedestrians, I hope that the decision is taken that any impingement that there may be on personal freedom is necessary in the interests of everyone involved.
The study carried out at Grand Rapids by Professor Borkenstein of Indiana University has been referred to. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about this. It has been argued that the Professor has shown that a drink will sometimes make a driver a little more alert, that it has little impairing effect. What in fact Professor Borkenstein argued from his researches was that the effect of


drink on some drivers is greater than it is on others and that an excellent driver might be less affected than a bad driver.
The Professor went on to put out the very interesting fact that a bad driver who has taken some drink may nevertheless not be such a terribly dangerous driver as an excellent driver who has taken a few drinks; because an excellent driver might be used to driving fast with safety and being able to have control of his vehicle always. Therefore, anything that lowers the excellent driver's performance can be more dangerous than a lowering in the performance of a bad driver who already might have a particularly low performance. Therefore, the argument that a few drinks are not particularly dangerous to some drivers is fallacious.
Both inside and outside the House we must concentrate on putting it over that the golden rule is that it is much better for a person to drink when he does not intend to drive and that he should be absolutely sure never to drink when he knows that he has to drive. People's behaviour after having taken drink is remarkable in any circumstances. We have all seen the change which occurs in shy and retiring people when they have had a couple of drinks. The danger is that the shy person who has taken a drink or two at a party may become not only the practical joker, but also the practical slayer if he gets behind the wheel of a car.
I want now to draw the attention of the House to this aspect. Quite a number of people who take a few drinks drive carefully through built-up areas; their behaviour there is exemplary. However, the moment they get on to a dual carriageway or a motorway, all hell is let loose. They ignore the 40 miles-an-hour speed limit. They rip along to make up the time lost when they were behaving properly. My constituents have suffered from this sort of behaviour. We have a very high death rate on Western Avenue. We have a very high accident and death rate on Whitton Avenue. The figures are almost as bad in Greenford Road. These three roads are primary highways crossing London and each of them goes through my constituency. I draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to this fact. It is time something was done to enforce to a much greater extent the already existing regulations in regard to speed and

manner of driving on our more important highways, and particularly on the three I have mentioned.
I want to make a few comments on Part II. The Bill sets out to deal with overloaded vehicles. However, the cause of an accident is not necessarily an overloaded vehicle but a badly loaded one. A badly or an incorrectly loaded vehicle may not be overweight, but it can be a much greater danger than an overloaded vehicle. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this point in Committee.
We are approaching the festive season. Appeals are made every year for people not to drink and drive. I ask tonight for the full support of the Press, television and wireless over the next few weeks. I ask them to join a campaign. Let newspapers give the public full-page advertisements free pointing out the dangers of drinking and driving. Let us have hardhitting advertisements on Independent Television acknowledging the dangers of drinking and driving. Let the B.B.C. help as well.
This is such an appalling problem that, unless we are prepared to gather up all our resources to try to reduce this evil, it will go on and in the end we may well require measures which today we may regard as abominable and restrictive.
Unless this slaughter on the roads is reduced, such action may well have to be taken in the end. I therefore hope that all the agencies for propaganda and the dissemination on information will make a concentrated effort to drive home to the public the absolute menace of drinking and driving and of driving carelessly and irresponsibly. The result of this appalling downfall in the standard of human behaviour is that we are slaying one another at a disgusting rate.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: In the one minute left to me to speak I wish to tell the House that I and my party entirely welcome the Bill and endorse its objects. There are only a few criticisms that I would have liked to have made if there had been time. As there is only one minute, I shall confine myself to a point which I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will deal with in reply.
I am not satisfied that the limit should have been set as high as 80 milligrammes


of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know from the study which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and which is summarised in the White Paper, Road Safety Legislation 1965–6, that, even at a blood alcohol concentration of 50–59 milligrammes the dangers are already 20 per cent. greater than they are as compared with someone who has not taken any drink. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that public opinion in this country would not be in favour of these smaller limits, I would only say that I found that constituents of whom I made inquiries in 1964–265 men and 242 women—by a majority of 79 per cent. said that they would accept a limit as low as three pints or its equivalent. That is a lot less than the 80 milligrammes provided in the Bill.
I wanted to make that one point, although there are many other criticisms which I should like to raise in Committee if possible. In general, my hon. Friends and I entirely support the Bill.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: As has been said by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), this has been a short debate, and perhaps a regrettably short debate. Equally, it is an understandably short debate since the basic principle with which we are concerned in the Bill—the creation of the new criminal offence of driving with over a specific quantity of alcohol in one's body—has already been debated in the House in February of this year.
As has been said by the Minister, it is a principle which is acceptable to the motoring organisations. Also it is acceptable to and recommended by the medical profession. It is a principle which is acceptable to both sides of the House and, as has already been said, we on this side of the House have no intention of voting against the Second Reading of the Bill.
However, we realise that we are today making a major change in our criminal law. The proposals in the Bill are wholly different from the present law whereby the offence has always depended upon the proof of the effect that the alcohol has had on the driver concerned. Therefore, when we are making a major change of

this kind it is right that we should study with care the implications of the change and we should realise that we are making a change which is far greater than the majority of people outside the House appreciate. I believe that we are creating an offence which is likely to affect many people who would never normally think of themselves as criminals in the ordinary sense of the word. For that reason, I hope that we shall have an opportunity to study the Bill's proposals with great care in Committee.
I propose to outline the general line which I believe our criticism of the Bill should take. However, before I turn to that, I would say that I do not believe that road safety as such or the criminal law are matters for party politics. All of us in our deliberations on the Bill should be concerned to see that the Bill in its final shape is as good as it can be and will at one stroke reduce the menace of the drunken driver while at the same time protecting the rights of the individual citizen.
In view of the time, I propose to turn to Part I of the Bill. I had intended to say a few words on Part II. I shall limit my remarks to stating that we accept it in principle but that there are certain matters we shall want to raise in Committee. Undoubtedly people outside the House will regard Part I as the most important Part. As has already been said. Part I has changed considerably since its predecessor had a Second Reading in February of this year. Random checks have gone, and I believe rightly so. I accept, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North said, that it is always a difficult problem to decide where the line should be drawn between individual freedom and the safety of others. I believe that those random checks were an unacceptable interference with the liberty of the individual. They would have done considerable damage to the relationship between the police and the public and, like the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), I believe they would have put a quite unnecessary and unworkable strain on the police forces.
I hope the Minister will not suggest that this is not a substantial change. It is certainly a substantial change of mind which has obviously been brought about by the widespread criticism which was


levelled at the proposals both inside the House and by responsible bodies outside. Whereas we on this side of the House may in the past have had reason to criticise members of the present Government for changing their minds, might I say that this is one change of mind which I think will be generally welcomed.
I do not find it possible to express equal pleasure about the new proposals in Section 2. Having heard the Minister this afternoon, my criticisms of Section 2, if her interpretation of the law be right, rapidly diminish but I must ask her whether she is sure that her interpretation of Section 2 is correct.

Sir H. Harrison: Does my hon. Friend refer to a Section of the Act or is he referring to a Clause in the Bill?

Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry. I meant Clause 2 of the Bill. Under Clause 2 as it stands, a police constable will be entitled to take a preliminary test when he
has reasonable cause to suspect
a person
of having alcohol in his body.
I hope we shall have an opportunity in Committee to hear exactly what this means. As I understand it, the interpretation which the Minister put on those words was that the police could have this power only if they stopped a man for some other reason. As I understand the law, and as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) said, under the 1960 Act the police already have power to stop a person at any time without reason, and I must say that from my first reading of this Measure I got the impression that, provided the police had reason to suspect that a person had alcohol in his body, they could stop him purely for that reason and make a test.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: That is the point that I have been trying to make throughout the debate. In reality there is no change between the Bill as it stood before and the Bill as it is now. The change has come in making it appear as if there were a change. This will have a profound psychological effect on the public.

Mr. Carlisle: I cannot accept that there is no change. I believe there is a substantial change. All I am saying is that

I hope the Minister's interpretation of the new words is the one which she intends the police to enforce. If that is the correct interpretation, I believe the Bill will require further amendment.
I believe that the alternative that has been raised by one or two hon. Members—the possibility of the police being able to stop people as they leave a public house or club—will lead to very real practical difficulties for the reasons raised by Lord Redmayne, as he now is, in the House at the time of the Second Reading of the original Bill, that apparently any test is unreliable if it is taken within a quarter of an hour of the consumption of alcohol. I should like to know from the Minister whether this is so. If it is so, does it not mean that it is impossible to check people as they come out of a public house? One is surely faced with two difficulties. Either a person has to be left for a quarter of an hour at the side of the road before he can be tested, or he has to be tested at once, with the possibility that a false reading will be obtained followed by all the consequences of further tests, and the anxiety of waiting for two or three days before the results of the tests are announced.

Mr. Lubbock: If the person has as much as 80 milligrammes of alcohol in his blood stream per 100 millilitres of blood, the presumption is that he must also have been in the public house for a considerable time.

Mr. Carlisle: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the police will not know whether he has been there for two minutes to get a packet of cigarettes or has been there for some time.
I leave that point to turn to our most serious objection to the Bill and to take up the point made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) about the penalties to be imposed under the Bill. The problem is that referred to by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), that where one chooses to have a quantitative test one is faced with a dilemma. Either the amount is set too high, and people get the impression that it is safe to drive with up to that amount in one's blood stream, and juries and courts are loath to convict at a lower level, or it is set too low and one risks causing injustice to many individuals who are caught under the Bill.
On Second Reading in February, the Minister described the limit in the Bill as generous. I am not sure whether that description is correct. The hon. Member for Orpington seems to think that it is too high. But in some countries in Europe which have similar legislation to that which we shall have in the Bill—in Austria, Belgium and West Germany—the limit is very nearly double. It is 150 milligrammes.

Mr. Taverne: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about Austria. It is the same there as it will be in Britain.

Mr. Carlisle: I apologise if I was wrong about Austria. I believe that I am right about Belgium and West Germany, and that in Denmark, France and Switzerland it is 100 milligrammes, whereas in Sweden it is as low as 50 and in Czechoslovakia as low as 30. We on this side of the House do not say that the limit chosen by the Minister is not correct; it is the limit that has been recommended by the British Medical Association. But where a limit is chosen which is perhaps comparatively low, one must look carefully at the effect on people who may be charged and convicted under the Bill. The White Paper and the Minister have made the point that prosecutions are seldom brought at present below 150 milligrammes. I am sure that she will agree that part of the reason for this is that below that figure clinical evidence of impairment is seldom present.
It is wrong that in introducing an automatic offence of this kind we should also be bringing in automatic statutory minimum penalties. I do not like the idea of statutory minimum penalties. It is not the job of Parliament to lay down statutory minimum penalties. Parliament's job is to see that the courts have sufficient means of punishment available and appropriate for the offence. The punishment in any particular case is not a matter for Parliament; it is a matter for the court, having weighed up all the circumstances. It is particularly dangerous, as in this case, when we are introducing an automatic offence—drinking a particular amount of alcohol—and we are wholly unable to tell anybody with certainty what he or she can safely drink.
The Minister did not fall into the trap she fell into in February of giving an

example of the amount that this meant, but on that occasion she said that it could be as much as six pints of beer or six large whiskies. The hon. Member for Orpington says that this is too high and that most people would accept a rule of three pints. I understand that that is likely to be far nearer the amount that will raise the blood reading to 80 milligrammes than the possible maximum previously referred to by the Minister. If she will not think that my analogy is too unflattering, and knowing that the amount one can drink varies a great deal with weight, the state of one's health and things like that, she would probably agree that for a woman of seven to seven and a half stones the amount needed to achieve this reading can be as little as just over one large whisky. The result is that people may find themselves committing an offence under the Bill without realising it.
My second criticism is that they may also be found to be committing an offence under the Bill when in fact their driving ability is not impaired and they are perfectly fit and safe to drive. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham has already said that the White Paper says first that the ability of almost all drivers to drive properly is impaired at 80 milligrammes, and later that there are very few people whose ability to drive properly would not be impaired. We are not legislating in the House for almost all people. We are legislating for all people, and the use of those words presupposes that there are certain people whose ability to drive will not be impaired by consuming this amount of alcohol. If that is so, we may face the difficulty that somebody is stopped, checked, found to have over 80 milligrammes of alcohol in his blood stream. rightly convicted and disqualified automatically for 12 months, when his ability to drive has never been impaired, when he has been perfectly safe and no danger to other road users, and his only offence is that he has drunk more than the minimum amount laid down by the Bill. The answer is quite simple. I am going on the figures given by the B.M.A. that some people will not be impaired.
The point I want to make is that whereas a car may be merely a social pleasure to many people and to many


others an important convenience, the ability to drive a car is to some people their livelihood. The loss of a driving licence for 12 months may well affect their ability to hold their jobs.

Mr. Molloy: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that that is an additional reason why they should be good and decent drivers?

Mr. Carlisle: Of course they should, but my point is that some people may be caught whose ability to drive will in no way be impaired, and they will in no way be dangerous on the road.
I shall leave this question, because time is running on, and put to the Minister that the answer is simple. It is by the use of the existing offence under the Road Traffic Acts, with its existing automatic disqualification for a period of 12 months. Where there is evidence of impairment, prosecute for impairment, with the automatic disqualification that follows. But where there is no evidence of impairment, prosecute under the Bill and leave disqualification to the discretion of the magistrates, who will probably disqualify in the vast majority of cases; but leave it in their discretion whether or not to disqualify. I believe that if she accepts this the Minister, who has shown herself willing to consider changes in the Bill, will see that the Bill achieves its twin objects of creating the proposed offence without at the same time creating injustice or hardship.
I turn finally to what is not in the Bill. For the first time a measure of this kind is described as a Road Safety Bill. Other Bills of this nature have always been Road Traffic Bills. If the change of name is intended to mean anything, I do not think that it shows that the Bill is in any way a comprehensive Measure. Drink is one cause of accidents, but it is by no means the only cause. Whereas the hon. Member for Ealing, North may salutarily remind us of the accidents that occur at Christmas, I remind him of the perhaps more salutary fact that the accidents which occur over Christmas are less than the daily average for the whole of the rest of the year. The Minister cannot avoid some of the causes of accidents. Human error creeps in, and there is sheer carelessness. On the other hand, I believe

that she can and should attempt to avoid some causes. I shall not go into them tonight. Points have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) and for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) about possible provisions which ought to be in the Bill and which we propose to put into it in Committee.
A major cause of road accidents is still the state of our roads, the delays which they lead to, the frustration and irritation which they cause, which eventually lead to pure bad driving. I bitterly regret that the amount of work on new roads and on major construction now being carried out not only fails to meet the promises of expansion in the targets which were made but, in terms of actual cash, represent for the year 1965 less money spent than in the previous year. Less was spent on new roads and on major construction in 1965 than in 1964, and this is the first time this has happened since 1951.
In so far as the Bill will reduce the number of accidents, it is to be welcomed. It will have some effect, but not a great effect on the overall figures. We shall hope to improve it by Amendment. We shall hope to ensure that, in these difficult matters, we reconcile the rights of individuals with the safety of society, and we hope that the Minister will bring in another Bill which will have even greater impact on road safety than this one can have.

6.42 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): Most of the speeches in the debate have been very constructive. As has been said, this is not normally a subject on which party points are made. I am extremely sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) made such a petty and partisan speech in opening for the Opposition. Many of his attacks related to what was not in the Bill. When the White Paper on further road safety measures is issued, the House will find there a large number of constructive measures which do not require legislation. At this stage, we are concerned with restrictive measures which do require legislation. If every point mentioned in the debate were put in this Bill, we should have an extremely long Measure and the chance of putting something of importance on the Statute Book


in the near future would have disappeared.

Mr. Galbraith: When is the White Paper likely to be published?

Mr. Taverne: My right hon. Friend will deal with that. It is her responsibility. I understand that it will be published this Session.
There was a wealth of comment about Part II, and I think that the points made can be dealt with in Committee. On general matters of principle, I can tell the House that the number of staff engaged by the Government for testing purposes has increased every year, and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that there should be suitable recruitment in order to man the testing stations, and she undertakes that the testers or examiners will be suitably qualified.
A number of minor points were made on Part I. J can tell the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) straight away that Clause 5 will cover visiting forces. I was asked why pedestrians were not covered by the Bill. Pedestrians raise a somewhat different problem. First, there is the different level at which a pedestrian becomes a hazard. Second, in normal circumstances being a pedestrian calls for rather less skill than driving a motor car, and it might be less reasonable in certain circumstances to put restrictions on pedestrians which one is perfectly entitled to impose on drivers. It would be rather difficult to say exactly what form pedestrian legislation would take. It has been tried but not always found acceptable by the House.
The hon. Member for Hillhead asked why the circular to coroners did not deal with pedestrians. We are not giving coroners any new powers or asking them to carry out their post-mortems in a different way. They have a duty to carry out post-mortems, and they are judicial officers. All we are asking them to do, as has been done several times in the past, is to make returns about blood tests which will be relevant to road traffic legislation. Since this road traffic legislation does not deal with pedestrians, the returns will not cover pedestrians.
Several points were made on Clause 2 and the enforcement provisions. The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle)

was quite right in some of his observations about the difficulties of enforcement if the police were to hang around outside public houses. It is extremely unlikely that police officers will hang about outside public houses in order to carry out tests there. In the first place, it is rather doubtful that they would wish to do so because it might give rise to a certain amount of resentment, and the police are very conscious of the need to promote good relations with the public to the fullest possible extent. That would not, perhaps, be the best way to make friends.
More important, perhaps, there is the point which the hon. Gentleman made that the time when someone emerges from a public house is not the time at which the preliminary testing device will show a very accurate reading. There is the mouth alcohol effect which produces the phenomenon to which the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) referred on the last occasion when this legislation was considered.
The hon. Member for Hillhead suggested that the test should not be exacted unless the constable had reasonable ground to suppose that someone had drunk beyond the prescribed limit. If this test were accepted and substituted for the present proposed power under which a constable may exact the test if he has reason to suppose that there is alcohol in the body, the whole enforcement of the new provisions would be negatived. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the constable should have power to demand the taking of the preliminary test only if there were outward and visible signs of impairment of ability to drive. But the whole purpose of this legislation is to create an offence which does not deal with outward and visible signs of impairment. We should be back to the situation in which only those people were to be prosecuted who, in fact, had more than 150 milligrammes per 100 millilitres in the bloodstream. We should be back to the old argument about whether or not someone showed visible signs—whether he was walking unsteadily, whether his speech was slurred, whether his eyes were glazed, and so on. One wants to avoid that.
It is quite reasonable to say, "Let the constable ask for this test if he has reasonable ground to suppose that a person has been drinking". It may be because his


breath smells, it may be because he is loud in his behaviour, it may be because of the manner in which the car is being driven.
Further, it does not seem to me that there is here any infringement of personal liberties. It seems to be accepted that the constable may exact the test if someone is involved in an accident or if there has been a moving vehicle offence. If it is reasonable in those two cases, it seems reasonable also if the constable has some reason to suppose that someone has consumed some alcohol.

Mr. Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman clear up one matter which I raised? Does he agree that this test is to be carried out only when the police have stopped a vehicle for some other reason, as the Minister appeared to imply?

Mr. Taverne: If for some reason a vehicle is stopped, that is a reason apart from an accident and apart from a moving vehicle offence; if for some other reason a vehicle is stopped, and the constable comes across the driver of the vehicle and he notices that someone's breath smells of alcohol, then he would be entitled to exact the test; but, as I understand it, in practice, he would not be expected to stop the person merely for that purpose. He would not be stopping vehicles in order to see whether people had been drinking.

Mr. Archie Manuel: But would it not be a good thing for the police to approach a person under the influence of drink in a car parked adjacent to a public house? Does my hon. and learned Friend want to get the man into the vehicle and on to the public highway?

Mr. Taverne: I am not saying that it is in all circumstances undesirable. All I am saying is that it will not be part of police practice, as we understand it at the moment, that the police will be there in force outside public houses in order to test the breath of all those who come out.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Taverne: I must move on; I have a number of important points to deal with.
If the motoring organisations accept the enforcement powers under Clause 2 as

it stands at present, I suggest that the House should be satisfied that the interests of motorists at least are sufficiently looked after. Therefore, the suggestion that the powers are too wide is not, I think, one which the House can entertain.
I come to the point made by the hon. Members for Chippenham, Glasgow, Hillhead and Runcorn about the penalties. If we did what they said and lowered the penalties for this offence and made them different from the provision in the 1962 Act, it would mean a relaxation of the law. There is no doubt that in practice most cases of impairment, almost all cases, will be prosecuted under the new Act. Most of the difficulties about convictions with juries will go. Let us face it: juries acquit far too many people whose driving is impaired. I remember that a jury before the 1962 Act returned a verdict that the accused was drunk but not unfit to drive. Many of these difficulties will disappear. The trial will be far easier for doctors. There will not be elaborate cross-examination about the outward visible condition of the defendant. One must realise that in almost all cases prosecutions will be brought under the new offence provisions. If there were lesser penalties, as hon. Members are suggesting, there would be a relaxation. But if the offence were treated less seriously there is no doubt that many of the drivers who at the moment are disqualified would not be disqualified. It seems to me that one must treat this offence with the seriousness it deserves.
A further point is that there is some misconception about what was done in the 1962 Act. It changed the law from the former situation where someone was guilty if he was unfit to drive. I remember the arguments on that Act when the question was not to be whether the driver was unfit but whether he was worse as a driver because of drinking and his ability was impaired. But the snag was that juries did not accept that there had been any important change in the law. It did not work because the argument was all on the old basis.
The new law means that some kind of objective criterion is laid down for somebody's ability being impaired. Although some people may still drive well with more than 80 milligrammes


of alcohol per 100 millilitres of heir blood, their ability to drive will still be the worse for having taken drink and they will be prepared to take greater risks than otherwise. The medical evidence on this is extremely strong.
What hon. Members opposite are really saying is that the big difference is that far more people will now be caught, and that because they are more liable to be caught, the penalties should be lighter. I do not think that this is something that we can accept. I feel that this is a point on which we are right to maintain a very heavy penalty, as it may be in certain cases, but a penalty which will be the maximum deterrent for those who too often in the past have regarded drinking as something which can well be combined with driving.
Some other approaches were shown in the debate when one or two hon. Members—my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) tried to put some questions on this—suggested mat we had gone too far in making concessions. It must be remembered how important these provisions are. We now have the new concept of impairment, an objective criterion. We now have new methods of enforcement. As the number of moving vehicle offences that occur is nearly 1 million a year, one appreciates the large number of occasions on which the police will be in a position to apply the new tests.
What is perhaps most important is the effect that this is likely to have on the figures. It was suggested by one or two hon. Members opposite that there was nothing much in the Bill, that it was only a little Bill and would not have much effect. Yet we can learn from the experience of Austria. There the same figure of 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood was specified as the criterion for the offence, and roughly similar powers were given to the police to enforce the law, though perhaps their powers do not in some respects go as far as ours. Nevertheless, the police can stop someone and apply the preliminary test if he is suspected of having some alcohol in his body. It has been found that there has been a decrease of one-third in the accidents attributable to drink in Austria. If we can achieve the same

thing as a result of the Bill, then, as my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of the debate, it will mean that the number of casualties prevented each year may be between 18,000 and 32,000, and if that is not a matter of significance in road safety, I do not know what is.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — ROAD SAFETY [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to persons driving or being in charge of motor vehicles after consuming alcohol or taking drugs and with respect to goods vehicles, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport under the provisions of that Act relating to goods vehicles.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

ROAD SAFETY

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to persons driving or being in charge of motor vehicles after consuming alcohol or taking drugs and with respect to goods vehicles, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of sums required to be so paid by virtue of the provisions of that Act relating to goods vehicles.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EAST KILBRIDE BURGH BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Bill comes before the House because the Burgh of East Kilbride, now a small burgh, is asking for the status of a large burgh in Scotland.
The House will know that a Second Reading for a Private Bill of this kind does not denote approval or acceptance of the principle of the Bill. This is entirely unlike the Second Reading of a Public Bill, whether it be a Private Member's Bill or a Government Bill, and therefore the House, in giving a Second Reading to the Bill, as I hope it will, would simply be ensuring that it went to a Select Committee. Such a Select Committee is of a special kind under the Private Bill procedure. It can hear evidence from outside bodies, and this would enable the case for and against the proposal in the Bill to be ventilated and examined in full.
The Private Bill procedure was the only procedure open to the promoters of the Bill. Under the 1929 legislation, in order to graduate to the status of a large burgh from being a small burgh, they had no other means of proceeding than by a Private Bill of this kind. I hope that the Bill will receive the Second Reading and support from all parts of the House which is necessary to enable it to go to the Committee and have these issues thrashed out in full there. In allowing this to happen, hon. Members would not be committed in any way to the principle of the Bill.
East Kilbride is a place of special interest to Scottish Members. It was the first and is the senior new town in Scotland. Indeed, I believe that it is of interest to all other hon. Members who are concerned with new towns, their past and their future. In 1947, East Kilbride was only a small village. It has grown and flourished as all who have been concerned with new towns hoped that it would. It has always been a text-book pattern of development for a new town.
In its layout and expansion, in the building which has taken place and—perhaps the most important aspect—in the synchronisation of the arrival of factories, homes and people living and working in East Kilbride, the arrangements have gone generally in accordance with the wishes of all those who want to see new towns flourish and grow. The arrangements for the town centre and the shopping areas have developed on lines which all of us hoped and expected to see.
The important point is that industry has come to East Kilbride and has prospered. The National Engineering Laboratory has been established there. The Inland Revenue computer to cover the P.A.Y.E. system for the whole of Scotland is about to go there bringing another 1,800 jobs. As a result, the population, which in 1946 was about 2,400, has risen to an estimated 50,000 today.
Many have contributed to this successful growth, but I am sure that no one will feel overlooked or excluded if I make special mention of the part played by the development corporation in this success story. In the course of its growth, East Kilbride has acquired burgh status as a small burgh, and the town council came into existence in 1963. Incidentally, that was opposed at the time by the county council but was not prevented. From the few remarks I have made in general, it will be seen that Scotland as a whole has an interest in the future of East Kilbride.
As Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, I had the honour and pleasure two and a half years ago of making an official visit to East Kilbride and had an opportunity of discussion with the development corporation, the new town council and the chance of visiting homes and different kinds of firms which had recently settled in the new town. It is because I am very much aware of East Kilbride as an expanding, thriving growth point of the kind we need in Scotland that I am glad to be initiating the debate. As I have mentioned, a Second Reading for the Bill would not commit any hon. Members who support it. The promoters of the Bill, in my opinion, have a very good case which should be heard, and heard fully, in Committee. I will give the House a brief outline of that case to assist


hon Members in considering these proposals.
There are 20 large burghs in Scotland. They were formed in 1929 out of towns with populations of over 20,000, although one had under 20,000. Six of these large burghs have fewer than 30,000 population. If East Kilbride were now to become a large burgh, there would be only six of these large burghs larger than East Kilbride, which has a population of 50,000.
The burgh is growing at a rate of about 4,000 to 6,000 a year and the target for the new town is set at 70,000 in five years, rising eventualy to 95,000 with the natural increase in population. The target of 70,000 is likely at the present rate to be reached in about five years' time. In that event and when thathappens, EastKilbride will problably be the fourth largest town in Scotland, excluding the four cities. It is now over twice the size of any other small burgh.
One objection which can be raised to the proposal in the Bill is that the reorganisation of local government in Scotland is being considered by a Royal Commission, But any conclusions and recommendations coming forward from the Royal Commission are, I suggest, unlikely to be put into effect for some time. The Royal Commission has to report; the Government have to consider their own views and reactions to its recommendations; they then have to have consultations with the local authority associations; eventually, a Bill has to be drafted and go through Parliament. In my opinion, it would be optimistic to estimate that this could be done in less than five years.
The, change now proposed in the Bill cannot, in my opinion, prejudice the findings of the Royal Commission and the eventual reorganisation of local government. If the proposal goes through, East Kilbride will be in its proper category. With a population of between 50,000 and 70,000 it will be among the large burghs, where it should be. Indeed, it will be one of the largest of them. Surely, when the Government come to carry out whatever recommendations the Royal Commission may produce, they will not in any way be inconvenienced by finding East Kilbride in its proper and appropriate

category rather than being completely outside that category.
This question has already arisen in England, and the Government's attitude is relevant to our debate this evening. On 10th February, when the announcement was made by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, now the Leader of the House, that a Royal Commission on Local Government in England was being set up, the right hon. Gentleman indicated that the establishment of that Royal Commission would not prevent changes in functions and boundaries in England from being carried out in the meantime. That had already been demonstrated, because a few weeks before he had himself been supporting proposals which included the establishment of a new county borough in England, the Borough of Warley. Since then, other proposals have been put forward and accepted for similar changes of functions and boundaries in England. We in Scotland must also respond to rapid changes. We must not be so obscurantist as to accept the argument for postponement on the basis that there is likely to be a general reorganisation some years ahead.
I have spoken of the size of East Kilbride, 50,000 today rising to 70,000 in about five years' time. It is not just a conglomeration of population. Part of the success of this new town has been the building up of a balanced community. Quickly and easily the position and rôle of small burgh were assumed. People in East Kilbride feel that they are a town. They know that they are a town which can play an increasingly important part in the future of Scotland. There should be provision in the development of a new town for its graduation from one status to another as it becomes larger and develops. Surely it is contradictory to encourage and applaud the steady and rapid development of a new town on the right lines, but then to deny it the responsibilities of coming of age.
It might be argued that because there was a previous case of this kind when the small burgh of Grangemouth unsuccessfully applied to become a large burgh that is precedent. At that time, Grangemouth had a population of only 18,000 and it was therefore a proposal of a quite different scale from that which we are considering. It was below the minimum population of the other large burghs.
Another objection which might be raised concerns staff and transfer of functions. It might be argued by anyone opposing the Bill that there would be an overlapping of functions between the bodies concerned, the new large burgh, the county council and, possibly, the development corporation. I do not believe that this need be. It is estimated that only two new departments would be needed by the burgh in order to take on the new functions, and I understand that it is the intention to offer jobs in the new departments to those who are already fully employed at present by the county council in doing the same work in East Kilbride. Therefore, there could be a simple transition in transferring the functions which would be transferred from the county council to the burghs. It has already been proved that that can be done successfully by what was done when the burgh first achieved its status as a small burgh.
I have tried briefly to outline the reasons for the Bill. A community has been built up with the good will of all the bodies concerned in Scotland, including, I believe, all the political parties in Scotland. We have all wished success to East Kilbride as the first and senior of the Scottish new towns. This issue tonight arises from the very success of that project inside 20 years.
Parliament should be generous to a community like this, as Parliament was partially responsible for creating it and bringing it into existence, and Parliament should therefore at least allow the promoters of the Bill to put their case in full in a Select Committee and to have it fully considered there by a Select Committee especially set up for that purpose. I therefore ask the House to join me in giving the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: I should announce to the House that I have selected the Amendment in the names of the right hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser) and the hon. Member for Both-well (Mr. James Hamilton).

7.16 p.m.

Mr. James Hamilton: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months".
I want to ask the House to reject the suggestion that the Bill should have a

Second Reading. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser) and I have consistently objected to the Bill having a Second Reading. It is most unfortunate that my right hon. Friend should be engaged on other business. He is deliberating with the Royal Commission on Local Government, of which he is a member.
I have objected consistently to the Bill, and do so again this evening, for 13 good reasons. In my constituency I have 13 representatives of Lanarkshire County Council. Some are Labour members; others are Moderates and some designate themselves Unionists. It is significant that the 13 are unanimous in saying that the Bill should not have a Second Reading. Both the opposition and the ruling party on Lanarkshire County Council unanimously object to the Bill.
As the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) has said, East Kilbride was designated a new town in 1947, the first in Scotland based on the 1946 legislation. Prior to that—and this is very important to Lanarkshire—it was a village with a population of 2,400 and the main industries were agriculture and the manufacture of mining and agricultural machinery.
The idea of a new town was that we should have decentralisation of industry, people and housing and that in the main people would come from Glasgow, Cambuslang and Blantyre. The East Kilbride Development Corporation was set up and the local authorities were the Lanarkshire County Council and the fifth district council, with representatives on the corporation. In the initial stages East Kilbride had two representatives on the county council, then four and then six. Now that it has achieved small burgh status, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has agreed that it should have eight representatives on the county council. Because it was a new town, the Secretary of State appointed the corporation the planning authority. In the initial stages, planning was the responsibility of the county council, but, because of the mammoth task and because it was a virgin town, it was agreed that planning should be passed to the development corporation, which is now the planning authority.
By 1962 the population had increased up to 35,000. In that year a petition was lodged by 12 inhabitants, who petitioned the Sheriff to grant small burgh status to East Kilbride. This was in accordance with Section 135 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.

Mr. Alex Eadie: Did my hon. Friend tell us that the corporation was the planning authority, and does he imply by this that a non-elected body was the planning authority?

Mr. Hamilton: That is perfectly correct. This was the decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, for the reasons which I have related. The Sheriff is bound to hold a local inquiry when a body of people in an area wants small burgh status. The county council and the fifth district council objected, and in the main the reasons for the objections were as follows:

1. that the residents of East Kilbride are at present fully represented on the two local authorities, namely the County and District councils, and which at present carry out effectively functions which would be undertaken by the proposed Town Council;
2. that the already limited functions operated by a small burgh would in this case be further restricted by the operations of the Development Corporation in the proposed area in that the main function transferred to the small burgh is housing. At the time of this application something like 90 per cent. of the dwelling houses in the area had been provided by the Development Corporation and they would continue in this field until they had completed their target of 70,000 of a population;
3. that the granting of small Burgh status would result in three separate bodies, the Town Council, the County Council, and the Development Corporation, having a hand in the development of the New Town of East Kilbride and operating within three different boundaries.

Despite these objections the Sheriff granted East Kilbride small burgh status as from 10th May, 1963. This was the only decision at which he could have arrived, as the law at present stands. He stated that the objections from the county council were most interesting. In March of this year East Kilbride Town Council lodged a Provisional Order providing for the status of the burgh of East Kilbride "at present a small burgh in the County of Lanark" to be changed into a large burgh, "and for other purposes."
The county council lodged a petition against the Order and its draft. As mention has been made of it, I shall refer to the application of Grangemouth Town Council. For the record, it should be mentioned that in 1961 a Provisional Order was lodged by Grangemouth Town Council in which it sought to change the status of Grangemouth from a small burgh to a large burgh, and also to extend the boundaries of the burgh by annexing areas in the counties of Stirling and West Lothian. On that occasion it was decided by the Chairman of the Committee of the other House and the Chairman of Ways and Means, after representations on behalf of Stirling County Council, that as that particular Order raised questions of much novelty and importance, the procedure should be by way of a Private Bill in the other House.
Lanark County Council carried out a similar procedure when East Kilbride promoted its Provisional Order by instructing its Parliamentary agents in London to make the appropriate representations against the Order. As a result it was decided by the respective Chairmen of both Houses that the Bill should be presented to the House of Commons.
The main points made in the representations were: that there were no statutory provisions in either the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, or in any other enactment for changing the status of a small burgh to that of a large burgh, and the proposals of the draft Provisional Order necessitated amendments of the First Schedule to the 1947 Act, in which both the large and small burghs were particularly specified; so far as the county council was aware, there was no precedent since the 1947 Act, or since the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, for an Order to alter the status of a burgh in the manner proposed in the draft Provisional Order.
This meant that the provisions of the Order would create a precedent on a matter of importance affecting local government administration throughout Scotland and since the provisions of the Order would raise questions of public policy of such novelty and importance, it was felt that the matter should be dealt with by way of a Private Bill and not a Provisional Order.
The small burgh of East Kilbride does not have the right to determine certain matters in which it is interested. At the same time this can be said of all other burghs in Scotland when they act under the umbrella or administration of a county council. While the Minister's functions, transferred to East Kilbride on achieving large burgh status may seem many, there are only a certain number of functions involved which are of any importance. These include civil defence, fire, health and welfare, roads, planning and motor taxation.
The position with regard to civil defence is that the county council and the existing large burghs in the county, following the pattern in other areas of Scotland, this year set up a joint committee to deal with recruitment, training, and the operational aspects of this service. Prior to the setting up of the joint committee, the county council and all the large burghs had their own civil defence committees.
East Kilbride as a small burgh was represented on the county council's civil defence committee and all that will be achieved with this service is representation on a joint committee, as against representation on the council's civil defence committee. To deal with the fire service next. There is in Lanarkshire a fire brigade joint committee, which has been set up under an Order entitled the Lanarkshire Fire Area Administration Scheme Order, 1948, made by the Secretary of State. This administers the fire service within the county council. So far as this service is concerned, the town council will obtain direct representation on a joint committee along with the other existing large burghs. There would, therefore, be no change in the present administration of the fire service, except an increase in the composition of the joint committee. To deal with——

Sir Stephen McAdden: Is it in order for hon. Members to read their speeches? Could they not be circulated in some form?

Mr. Speaker: It is not in order for hon. Members to read speeches. It is, however, in order for hon. Members to use copious notes.

Mr. Hamilton: Dealing next with health and welfare, the national trend is

steadily moving towards a more unified health service on the lines of the Porritt Committee's suggestion of area boards, combining general practitioners, hospital and public health services on an area basis. Last week the White Paper, Social Work and the Community, was presented. In essence this means that even existing large burghs will be taken care of if the House is prepared to accept all that is stated in the White Paper.

Mr. Michael Noble: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given way: I did not want to interrupt his flow of language. My point is that these rather detailed points which he is putting to the House are surely exactly those which a Select Committee ought to consider. It seems to me—I say it in great humility—that the hon. Member's points are irrelevant to our discussion today.

Mr. Hamilton: I would say that these are most relevant for the County of Lanark. I am attempting to prove to the House that the move is towards larger local government representation.
I should now like to refer to education. When the block grant was introduced by the previous Administration, Lanarkshire County Council and other local authorities received a grant based on the formula adopted at that time. We made representations as a local authority—I was a member of that authority—to the Scottish Office. Realising that East Kilbride was a new town, we knew that it carried tremendous responsibilities. The Scottish Office was not prepared to give us any extra money, so the major proportion of the block grant for educational purposes went to East Kilbride, which meant that many of us representing Lanarkshire constituencies found that many of our dilapidated schools were still dilapidated and that we could not get the necessary money to build new ones.
A fortnight from now, I am to attend the opening of a school replacing one which existed for over 100 years. Another school is being built to replace one about which representations were made by one of my predecessors in 1930. Consequently, we on the county council feel that we have been more than decent with East Kilbride. We took in East Kilbride when it had a small population; now that it


has grown to such dimensions, it wants to leave the county.
One of the main problems is that it will be financially beneficial to the people in the area and in the end detrimental to the landward part of the county. I am very concerned about this because there are 13 different areas in my constituency with no burgh association at all. The difference between Grangemouth and East Kilbride is that when the former made application the amount of money spent on education was 22·2 per cent. In East Kilbride, it was 7·7 per cent. On landward services, the Grangemouth proportion was 31·5 per cent. and in East Kilbride, 13 per cent.
Therefore, the number of people in East Kilbride comparable with the County of Lanark on a percentage basis is in no circumstances on the same basis as Grangemouth. When the latter made the necessary application, it was not granted large burgh status.
The Prime Minister announced that he was setting up a Royal Commission to deal with local government structure in Scotland, and that Commission is now sitting. This will mean another handout to East Kilbride. These are questions which I should like my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to answer. It has been said that it is not imminent. How imminent is "imminent"? When does it become "imminent"? I should like to know whether the Government are insincere in asking that a Royal Commission be set in operation when, I assume, it will be able to give us its findings as quickly as possible.
It has also been said that the development corporation will wind up in 1971. That is not my information. To my knowledge no one knows when the corporation will wind up. I should like my hon. Friend to give us some information on this point also. I ask the House not to give the Bill a Second Reading.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I am sure that the House will applaud the very sturdy explanation by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) of some of the arguments against giving the Bill a Second Reading. He said that he had 13 reasons for making his speech and they were the

13 constituents of his on the Lanarkshire County Council. Those of us who support the Second Reading of the Bill could claim to have 50,000 special reasons for our support. Those reasons are the interests of the 50,000 people now living in East Kilbride.
The hon. Member made it clear that there is no party dispute—at least I hope that there is none—in this matter and that the only consideration is that of the public interest. What we must consider specifically is not whether the case of East Kilbride is right or not, but whether it is right that the cases for and against the Bill should be considered in depth and detail by a Select Committee.
This point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) but it must be emphasised, not only for hon. Members but for the benefit of a wider audience, that we are considering not the merits, as such, of the Bill but whether or not there is a sufficiently strong case for it to be considered in detail by a Select Committee.
I have read, as others will have done, the statements by the Burgh of East Kilbride and by the Lanarkshire County Council, setting out the arguments for and against the Bill. It certainly seems to me, as an outside observer in these matters, coming from a part of Scotland far from Lanarkshire, that there is strength in the East Kilbride argument that the sark of the small burgh is now too cutty for this thrusting adolescent now approaching maturity. The transformation of East Kilbride was underlined by my hon. Friend. He showed that a population of 2,400 in 1946 has now reached 50,000. It has gone up 20 times in 20 years, and it is confidently expected to rise by another 20,000 in the next five years.
The hon. Member for Bothwell said that the Grangemouth Burgh Bill was ultimately thrown out by a Select Committee some years ago, and that point was also made in the statement put out by the Lanarkshire County Council against the Bill. I would, however, remind the hon. Gentleman that whatever its merits or demerits were the Bill was granted a Second Reading in another place. One might consider that the parallel was not very close to the present issue because, looking this evening through the


debate in another place, I observed that the Grangemouth business was a much smaller affair than is the East Kilbride question. The population of Grangemouth was expected to reach 22,500 by 1964, and 30,000 by 1975. East Kilbride is likely to reach 70,000 several years before the latter date—two or three times as large a population some years sooner. I therefore suggest that the Grangemouth argument is not valid in the context of this Bill.
The hon. Member also referred to the Royal Commission. It can be argued, I suppose, that because a Royal Commission is now sitting it would be improper for this House to consider any change in local government matters until a Bill ultimately came before Parliament, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn has pointed out, the Royal Commission has still to report, and that could take a very long time. Following the report, there will be consultations, and then a Bill which will have to go through Parliament, during which time it will have to survive its long journey through the Scottish Standing Committee. That being so, I suggest that even my hon. Friend's estimate of five years may be an underestimate of the time that may elapse before any recommendations coming from the Royal Commission are finally enacted.
Is the fact that a Royal Commission is sitting a good reason to stifle all changes of this kind? It is a very convenient argument for government—and here I spell it with a small letter—to say that it would be administratively improper or unwise to proceed with this or that action, because the broad matter is being considered by this or that body. One remembers the chorus that went up from both sides of the House years ago of "Waiting for Molony". It would be wrong for us now to accept a cry of "Waiting for the Royal Commission." Are we to stifle all change just because this Royal Commission is now sitting? The Secretary of State for Scotland is now seeking powers to speed the amalgamation of police forces. I mention that only in passing to demonstrate that proposals affecting local authorities are now going through Parliament ahead of the findings of the Royal Commission.
One of the main arguments used by the county council in opposing the Bill is consideration of the efficient administration

of local government. The county council believes that the present system provides a more efficient and economical form of local government than would be the case if the status of East Kilbride were to be changed. That may be so, but whether or not it is so is a matter that should be considered in great detail by a Select Committee.
I must add that the interests of the local population might, as I have read the argument, be better served if the status of a large burgh were conferred on East Kilbride. I imagine that East Kilbride, in common with other new towns, has a particularly large young population, so it would seem reasonable that children's welfare services should be moved to a position in local authority life where they impinge more closely on the people for whom they are primarily provided—the young children of the young population of East Kilbride. One could extend the argument to cover other aspects of local authority responsibility.
In short, while I recognise that there are arguments against the merits of the Bill itself, I do not feel that they have been proved sufficiently either by the hon. Member for Bothwell or by the statement against the Bill to justify the rejection of the Bill at this stage by the House. I very much hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be rejected, and that the Bill will be given a Second Reading, so that the full merits of the case can be considered in depth by the Select Committee.

7.46 p.m.

Sir Myer Galpern: The other day, during exchanges in this Chamber between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) interjected to inquire whether it was a private war or could anyone join in. It seems to me that this evening we are listening to a private war on the municipal or local government front between East Kilbride, which has small burgh status at present, and the larger county council. I think that it would be a fine gesture if, at the end of the debate, those who are immediately interested in it—that is to say, hon. Members representing areas governed by the Lanarkshire County Council and the hon. Lady


the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), who represents East Kilbride, were to refrain from voting. We might then get a fairer representation of the wishes of the House.
An objective point of view is called for now. The reference to the Royal Commission and the reasons advanced for delaying any consideration of the request by East Kilbride to attain large burgh status is, as has already been pointed out, entirely beside the point. If the House were to be given an assurance this evening that whenever the Royal Commission reported all its recommendations would be accepted forthwith by the Government I would be prepared to withdraw my opposition to the Lanarkshire County Council case, but it must be well within the knowledge of every hon. and right hon. Member that not only has it sometimes taken a long time to implement the findings of Royal Commissions but that they have also been known to be buried in pigeon-holes. Who is to gainsay the fact that if it is inconvenient to adopt the opinions of Royal Commissions a similar fate might befall the report of the Royal Commission presently sitting in Edinburgh?
One could refer to another Royal Commission. A Royal Commission has just reported that, in its view, it would not be proper for an Attorney-General to appear before tribunals, but we know that the Government, in the knowledge that this view would be reported today, have decided that the Attorney-General will appear before a tribunal. Therefore, the question whether the Royal Commission is to report in any particular direction should be left out of consideration this evening when deciding whether or not to allow this Measure to proceed further.
I have a good deal of sympathy for the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) speaking, as he does, on behalf of the Lanarkshire County Council because East Kilbride has so far been a contented member of a happy family in the Lanarkshire County Council. She has derived all the benefits that we all admit come from excellent parential guidance from the County Council. But she has not yet attained her majority. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you

know full well, having recently had the happy event of one member of the family hiving off from your family household, and giving that event your blessing, that you did not remind them that you had spent so much in the past and that surely the time was right for them to stay on in order to repay you. You were delighted about that event, and that is exactly how the Lanarkshire County Council ought to feel about this event.
Here we have a local authority which has built up a tremendous reputation in Scotland. It has set the pattern for industrial and other developments such as we should like to see spread throughout Scotland. It has exceeded the target set for it in a much shorter time than expected and, with a population rising to a figure of 90,000, it far outstrips others who oppose it when it says, "We recognise and thank you for what you have done in the past, but now we wish to hive off on our own and see how we can carry on with our own resources and gain our own experience". In the spheres in which it can operate as a small burgh, such as clean air, sewerage, street lighting, roads, and so on, it has not only come up to but exceeded the standards set by the Lanarkshire County Council in the facilities provided by it. Having grown to the size that it has, it wishes to take under its wing some of the other services which may not be so readily provided by the Lanarkshire County Council because of the costs involved. I think that that is a reasonable attitude to adopt. It is one which should be encouraged and not opposed by the Lanarkshire County Council.
What is the real reason for the opposition? As I read the statement published by the Lanarkshire County Council, it is purely a financial one. I cannot read anything else into it, and paragraph after paragraph stresses that fact. In paragraph 6, for example, one reads:
While the transfer of functions now administered by the County Council would lead to a considerable increase in the cost of providing equivalent services and facilities in the Burgh, there would be no corresponding reduction in the cost of such services in the remainder of the County.
No one disputes that. But that is no reason why a town with a population of 50,000, rising ultimately to 90,000, should be denied large burgh status, simply because Lanarkshire County


Council says, "It will not help us financially".
In paragraph 10, the county council says that it should not be obliged to go before a Select Committee. That is all that it is asking, and I think that that fact ought to be stressed. I appeal to my hon. Friends on this side of the House to listen to the plea, even if they agree with East Kilbride, because, although I am behind the East Kilbride case, it has to be examined. All we ask is that an opportunity should be given, by giving the Bill a Second Reading, to enable it to be investigated fully by a Select Committee.
In paragraph 10, the Lanarkshire County Council says, arbitrarily:
In these circumstances the County Council respectfully submit that they should not be put to the considerable expense of appearing before a Select Committee of your Honourable House in opposition to the Bill and that the Bill should be rejected on Second Reading.
That is the sole reason that the county council advances for our not giving the Bill a Second Reading. It says that it will involve the council in considerable expense. Surely right hon. and hon. Members of this House will recognise that that is no valid argument for extinguishing completely a case which is put forward reasonably by responsible people. I have a letter from one such responsible body, the East Kilbride Trades Council, which says:
East Kilbride Trades Council urges all Scottish Members of Parliament to support the Bill which will grant Large Burgh Status to the East Kilbride new town.
We are not going as far as that. We are not urging the House to grant large burgh status to East Kilbride this evening. We ask that there should be an examination by a Select Committee.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the Lanarkshire County Council in the minor difficulties which it faces, but I am sure that, with the aid of hon. Members of this House, it will be able to overcome those difficulties. In addition, we have the assurance given by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) that the officials who are presently looking after the two new departments which will be set up in the Lanarkshire County Council will, if they so desire, be taken over by the East Kilbride Town Council. I think that that was what he said.

Mr. G. Campbell: I said that I understood that those fully employed in East Kilbride at present on the same services would be offered employment.

Sir M. Galpern: I thank the hon. Gentleman for amplifying his statement. If they are willing, these officials will be able to move over and have their salaries paid by the large burgh of East Kilbride, when the Lanarkshire County Council will be responsible for them no longer. I take it that that is the position.
In East Kilbride now there are 50,000 people who have given this very close consideration. Even when applying for small burgh status, there was a school of thought in East Kilbride which said that it should go from the beginning for large burgh status. However, after considering other representations made to it, it thought that it would take two bites at the cherry. It may be that it made a mistake and that, if it had gone ab initio for large burgh status, it might today have been enjoying that status. It knows that its rateable value is such that it is adequate for the additional powers which it now seeks, and that is a very important aspect.
While recognising that there may be something in the argument that the Lanarkshire County Council will suffer financially if large burgh status is granted to East Kilbride, in my opinion, there is still a 100 per cent. case for the examination of the proposal by a Select Committee. I hope that the House will agree to give East Kilbride that opportunity.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I make no apology for intervening in this debate. From the point of view of remoteness, my constituency is even further away from East Kilbride than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). Like other hon. Members, I think that a matter of principle is involved here, and it is the simple one which has been stated already that the matter should be investigated in depth by a Select Committee.
I was going to deal with some of the points against the Bill, but, in view of the admirable speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), I shall leave those on one side. As he said, the main consideration against the Bill by the Lanarkshire


County Council seems to be a financial one. It also mentions population.
A town with a population of approximately 50,000 would come into the category of a large burgh in any circumstances, I should have thought. There are five other large burghs already in existence in the County of Lanark, only two of which are at present bigger than East Kilbride. If the population trend continues, in two years' time there will be only one large burgh in the county which is bigger than East Kilbride will be at that juncture. I might add that even that one is the joint burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw. To me, it is only reasonable that East Kilbride should achieve large burgh status and shoulder the responsibility which obviously it is only too willing to do.
Many of these responsibilities which it wishes to take on are administered by Lanarkshire County Council. The County of Lanark may not be a particularly large county in area compared with many other counties in Scotland, but it is very much more densely populated, and it is perhaps incidental that the town council wishes to take on responsibilities which closely, one might even go so far as to say intimately, affect the local people and the local ratepayers. Some functions which I have in mind are the care of children, the major health services, and a comparatively minor service, but a very important one, school crossing patrols. In addition, there is the care and welfare of the older people and of handicapped persons.
I do not want in any way to appear to be criticising the present set-up, nor in particular the officers who administer the services as they are at present. Far from it, but how much better that the control of these services should be in local hands? After all, if local government is to mean anything, it must be local in the true sense of the word.
We are not asking, or at least the Bill does not ask, much in this sense. As has been mentioned, it requires only two new Departments—a new health and welfare department for major health services and for the care of the old folk and the handicapped, and a children's department. All the other functions for which it is asking will be taken on under its existing departments.

In the wider sphere, East Kilbride has no representation on many joint committees, such as the fire brigade in which it has a definite and considerable interest. I am advised that if large burgh status is achieved this state of affairs will be remedied.
To progress from small burgh status in 1963 to readiness for large burgh status in 1967 is a considerable achievement. It is a considerable tribute to those who have been farsighted and who have worked hard to produce a town council which is obviously viable and which is obviously very much alive. I think that this ought to be encouraged, and I therefore hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. John Robertson: I preface my brief remarks by saying that I am a Lanarkshire man with local government experience in Lanarkshire. I know the area. I have been in it all my days.
I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) says that all the members of the county council, irrespective of party, are united in opposing this application. This has always been the case. If one wanted to unite the county, one had only to bring up the question of one of the other local authorities wanting to spread its wings. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) that the only thing which united the large and small local authorities and the county council was the attempt by Glasgow to intervene. This is the sort of thing we always found, and this aspect is extremely important because it reveals the inherent antagonisms within the existing structure. This is one good reason for the reorganisation of local government. The other is the relationship of local authorities with the Scottish Office.
One thing of which we can be sure is that East Kilbride is a town. There is no denying that. Indeed, if someone were to visit East Kilbride, he would realise just how much of a town it is. It is a natural unit of local government. It is close knit, well-designed, and well-planned, even though a stranger would need a map and a compass to find a way through the roundabouts and one-way streets.
The county council should realise that this town is not its child. If the county council did not oppose this town being built, it certainly did not build it itself, although it may be argued that the opportunity was there so to do. It will therefore not do for the county council to argue in the way that it has done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Both-well dealt at great length with the functions which would be performed by the new authority, saying that the corporation would be the planning authority and the housing authority. This is a jolly good reason why East Kilbride should become a large burgh, so that at the earliest possible date this non-elected body can have the opportunity of transferring its functions to an elected body, and I repeat that a large burgh is a natural unit.
My hon. Friend told us how much the county council had done for the people of East Kilbride in providing education. He seems to have forgotten that a large amount of the money raised for education in Lanarkshire was contributed by the people in the large burghs of Motherwell-Wishaw, Airdrie, Coatbridge, Hamilton and Rutherglen, and also by people in the small burghs. It was not all provided by the county council. Other local authorities pay a substantial amount of the education requisition.
I think that the idea of a Royal Commission is a red herring, and I know that my hon. Friend will not pay much attention to it. After all, his right hon. Friend was not prevented from bringing in proposals for the amalgamation of police forces just because a Royal Commission was to report. Nor did he feel inhibited from bringing in proposals for the reorganisation of water supplies merely because a Royal Commission reported. Again, he had no misgivings about bringing in a White Paper on the social services, although a Royal Commission may report. My right hon. Friend realises that although a Royal Commission may report at some date, it does not mean that anything will be done, or that if something is done, it will be what the Commission recommends.
It is important that this large burgh should be established so that it can assume the powers of the corporation as a housing authority and as a planning authority and take over its other functions before the Royal Commission reports. I believe

that the Royal Commission will not go for county councils. I do not think that the decision has been made, and that the Royal Commission will merely rubber stamp it. I think that it will bring in original proposals, and that East Kilbride will have a place among them. I therefore suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell, and to any hon. Member who feels disposed to support me, that we should allow this matter to go upstairs to be investigated and for the arguments to be heard. I therefore suggest that we should give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.8 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: I cannot help feeling a little sorry for the hon. Member for East Kilbride, because I feel that he has been sent to this Chamber with a pistol at his back. I admit, however, that I admired the spirited attempt which he made to put forward his case.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart): I am not proposing to speak in this debate, but I must correct the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's designation. I think that he meant my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Robertson). I am the hon. Member for Lanark, which includes East Kilbride.

Earl of Dalkeith: I meant the hon. Member for Bothwell. The hon. Gentleman's arguments were good arguments in favour, rather than otherwise, of this Bill going to a Select Committee. This, after all, is what we are concerned about. It is so easy to be carried away with the arguments for Lanarkshire, or for East Kilbride, but this is the only point about which we are concerned, and I think that the hon. Gentleman's argument emphasised how necessary it is that the Bill should go to a Select Committee.
Several hon. Members have mentioned that we ought to take an objective view, especially those who are far away from East Kilbride. It is relevant to point out that this is one of the few occasions when we are not blinded by the sparks that fly off the grinding of party political axes. I came here with an open mind, but after hearing the arguments which have been advanced so far I feel that there is every reason why this Bill should be given a Second Reading.
The principle involved here is one that we recognise not only in respect of local government but throughout the British Commonwealth. It is the same situation that arises when a colony grows up and reaches the stage at which it wishes to have its independence. Its people want their own say in how they shall run their affairs. Surely the situation in East Kilbride is the same. I warmly support my hon. Friends and am itching to hear what the Government position is on this matter.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I agree with the overwhelming weight of opinion that the Bill deserves a Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) has said that that 13 people were unanimous. I would point out that on the East Kilbride County Council there were 15 unanimous members—nine Labour, three Conservative and three Independent. That representation is the equal of any approach that my hon. Friend may put up.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that when I referred to 13 unanimous members I was referring to county council members in my constituency and not to the county council as a whole?

Mr. Dalyell: Being suspicious, and perhaps of an uncharitable turn of mind, whenever I am approached by people who have an axe to grind I view them with a certain amount of reserve. With the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) in whose constituency East Kilbride is, I paid a visit to the town yesterday and carried out some personal research. I make no claim for the statistical accuracy of that research, but it is worth mentioning to the House that I called at 100 doors in Falkland Drive, Cloverhill View, Avon-dale, Lochaber Place, Logie Square, Windward Avenue, and Bousefield Road, and elsewhere. Anybody who knows East Kilbride will admit that that is a fairly wide representation of the town.

Sir M. Galpern: Did my hon. Friend combine his call with a request for the local people to join the Labour Party?

Mr. Dalyell: Because I was so open to the charge of having this or that axe to grind I did not even take with me, or accept any hospitality from, anybody to do with East Kilbride.
One thing is quite clear; the question whether the people there have large borough status is very important to them. This matters to them. It really does. I asked the people who came to the door a simple question. I said that as Member of Parliament for West Lothian I had been asked to take part in the debate in the House of Commons tomorrow and that the only question I wanted to ask was: does it matter whether you are a large borough or not? Of the 100 people I asked, 69 said "Yes" and 31 were either too busy to answer or did not know very much about it. No one showed any hostility to the thought of East Kilbride's becoming a large borough.
It seems to me that the wishes of the people whom we are discussing matter, because if democracy means anything it means that we have to take account of the wishes of people, and if they feel strongly about this matter that is in itself a good reason why the House should take those feelings into account.
We should be sensitive to the views of the residents in any area that we discuss. I do not wish to criticise the Lanark County Council. Nevertheless, I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for Both-well that that County Council is unloved in East Kilbride. There is undoubtedly a feeling of remoteness to the council in the area. I do not go so far as the man who told me that they would be stifled by an octopus; I am not sure whether the Lanark County Council can be called an octopus. Doubtless many of its members do excellent work. Nevertheless, that is the feeling of some people in East Kilbride.

Mr. James Hamilton: Has my hon. Friend been to Lanark in order to discover how the people there feel in relation to the point that he has made? What he has told us is absolute balderdash and nonsense.

Mr. Dalyell: I studied the county council's memorandum and found it to be a very thin document, until I reached paragraph 10, which has already been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member


for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). Paraphrased, it means that the county council says that democracy is too expensive and that we should short-circuit this matter. It says, in effect, "We, Lanark County Council, do not believe that the House of Commons is right to have set up this kind of procedure." That is an accurate paraphrase of the county council's attitude.
In my view, that come jolly near to privilege. I take my stand—having read that document very carefully and discussed it with many people, including some of my hon. Friends, and bearing no personal malice of any kind—on the argument that it would be wrong for the House not to go through the procedure of giving the Bill a Second Reading, and a proper consideration.

Sir S. McAdden: If I understood the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) correctly, he said that when he carried cut his personal research in East Kilbride yesterday he did not accept any hospitality. Was he offered any hospitality?

Mr. Dalyell: It was—yes—full hospitality—lunch on the town council. The important question here is the question: how local should government be? I represent two different places—Whitburn and Blackburn. Any Member for West Lothian will notice that whereas there are comparatively few frustrated complaints from people in Whitburn, there are many from people in Blackburn—and I think that I know the reason. In Whitburn a local resident can go round the corner and see the people against whom he wishes to complain, whereas in Blackburn it is often a question of going to Linlithgow. This applies to East Kilbride. If democracy is to work properly it must be as local as possible. Ask the mums of East Kilbride about local maternity centres.
It would be unwise for me to criticise the Chairman of the Royal Commission, or its members. Nevertheless, the Royal Commission will take a long time to report. My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston said, "How do we know that the findings of the Royal Commission will be accepted?" I ask the House to recognise that East Kilbride is a bustling community, where these things matter; where

they are considered with a sense of urgency. This House should create a situation in which the feelings of the local people are taken into account. Let their energies be released.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I rise briefly to support the Bill, or rather to urge its consideration by a Select Committee. It is not much to ask. It is a very reasonable proposition that the whole matter should be discussed and thought through very carefully. I hope that common sense will have its way tonight.
Here we have a village transformed into a burgh, thrusting its way onwards to become a large burgh. It has developed from 2,400 souls in 1947 to a township of approximately 50,000 or more today. This means that it already has more than double the population of any other small burgh in Scotland, and is, in fact, larger than over half the 20 existing large burghs. Since East Kilbride was granted the status of a small burgh on 6th May, 1963, it has had conspicuous success in developing necessary services, and it has now reached the conclusion that it should extend this worth while process still further.
This burgh has such a prima facie case for the status it seeks, at least to be examined, that it behoves one to query why there should be any objection at all. I should have thought that it would have been the aim of national government and local government actively to assist the growth of places like East Kilbride. I regret the aims of those who seek to retard the control of its own growth. I think they value their own control too highly for their own health or for the health of those they seek to restrain. They make the claim that it will dislocate services, will make administration more inconvenient, and is likely to disrupt public services—all the arguments, in short, which can always be adduced and, sadly, so often are adduced, by governments or local governments or anybody attracted by the elementary proposition of the wisdom of doing nothing. Such arguments are, as usual, founded on opinions and lacking in fact. As the alternative to such a charge can only be distinguished by a Select Committee, I think the question should go there as quickly as possible.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I do not think that this is the occasion or the opportunity to make speeches of a self-evident nature. Hon. Members who have spoken have been saying basically that East Kilbride was a small town, that it has become a large town and that, therefore, it should have large burgh status. The implication is that the Lanarkshire case is a frivolous one. I do not think it is a frivolous case. I have been in on the East Kilbride story longer than anybody in this House. I was a member of the survey team who, in 1946, prepared the research data on which the town was built. For the last 14 years I have been closely involved with the education of young people in the town.
It was correct for East Kilbride to raise this demand. The demand is by no means a frivolous one. There will be a Select Committee—there is no doubt in anybody's mind that this should go to a Select Committee; but I think it would be very bad if this matter went to a Select Committee on the basis of the type of debate which has taken place today. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) would be one of the first to acknowledge that this is an important matter.

Sir M. Galpern: It is a dangerous argument to suggest that a Select Committee will be in some way influenced by the debate which has taken place this evening. I hope my hon. Friend will make it abundantly clear that, once we have disposed of the procedure, the Select Committee will be enabled to consider the matter de novo without being influenced by what has taken place this evening.

Mr. Buchan: Of course. That goes without saying. Having said that, we should be perfectly clear that a particular problem exists.
This is not so much a small town which has become a large town—it is a new town, with new town priorities and with new town costs to the county council. It costs the Lanarkshire County Council, for example in education, a great deal. I was one of those who suffered from this in my teaching duties. If it was a choice of replacing an old school where a school still existed, or of building a new school where none existed but which was needed in East Kilbride, then the

new school had to come first. Therefore, in fact, we had an undue expenditure on facilities in East Kilbride. Therefore, when the matter comes up, as the county has raised it under point No. 6, we must realise that a great deal of expenditure is involved. A great deal of expense has been incurred by the county in the past, which it cannot make up out of future rating, because it will now lose the rating factor of the new town.

Mr. John Robertson: My learned Friend should realise that the Lanarkshire education authority is not the Lanarkshire County Council. The education requisition falls upon quite a number of large burghs which constitute a quite considerable proportion of the population of Lanarkshire. Therefore, to suggest that the cost should fall on the county council would be quite wrong.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should like to ask my hon. Friend if East Kilbride is trying to get control of its own education.

Mr. Buchan: Of course it is not. I am speaking about the problem of costs as it affects the county. The large burghs are involved in the costing of educational facilities in smaller places like East Kilbride. The points that I am putting forward do not detract from my argument, but add to it.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend, in speaking about education costs, referred to the fact that East Kilbride was a new town and was affected by the burgh requisitions. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) mentioned that the Government also made extra money available because it was a new town.

Mr. Buchan: I was not going into the raw, crude figures. I said there was undue cost within Lanarkshire being devoted to East Kilbride. Other proportions came from other Government resources towards the new town. Nevertheless, the effect was in general costing an undue amount. There was a rundown effect on educational development within the county generally. The presence of the new town meant that Lanarkshire incurred, in one way and another, additional costs. Therefore, when the question of costs is raised it is not a frivolous argument.
This is an important point which underlines the necessity of sending the Bill to a Select Committee. What arises from this is that our method of financing the new towns has been inadequate in the past, but it should not have been the position that counties should have been involved in these additional costs. Therefore, we should allow a Select Committee to begin to consider this matter. If we do not, before too long with some half-remembered, nostalgic memories of things which might have been said in a debate in the House, we shall be faced with this problem again with other new towns. Unless the problem which now faces Lanarkshire is removed, it will be repeated time after time in the case of other counties—for example, Ayrshire and Dunbartonshire in the case of Cumbernauld. Lanarkshire has raised an important matter—the question of the cost of financing new towns. It would be wrong for us to say that it had a frivolous case based only on point 10.
I have tried to state my reasons why this matter should go to a Select Committee. I know East Kilbride and I wish it well in its arguments before the Select Committee.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: I shall take only a few minutes to support my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). He moved the Second Reading of the Bill shortly and brought out the major points which the House should consider.
East Kilbride has been one of the great success stories of Scotland. It has been so by the happy occurrence that it was conceived by the first Socialist Government and nourished under successive Conservative Governments. As far as I know, no party politics have ever played any part in this to the detriment of East Kilbride. I speak this evening because this is the first of what will be many other similar cases. I well understand the point made by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) that perhaps in the past some of the financial arrangements between new towns and county councils have not been perfect. There are many parts of this which I have been aware of and which the hon. Lady who is now Minister of State,

Commonwealth Affairs, has discussed with me in the past.

Mr. Dalyell: To reinforce the right hon. Gentleman's point, may I point out that it is as well to remember that the Lothians Regional Survey and Plan has recommended that Livingston should be a large burgh within 10 years?

Mr. Noble: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. This is the first one. I am much comforted by the support it has had on both sides of the House. Surely we do not want to have a debate of this type in the future as to whether Cumbernauld is to stay part of Dunbartonshire, whether Livingston is to stay part of West Lothian or whether Glenrothes is to stay part of Fife. This is not the point at issue.
Whether I and the many other hon. Members who have received the report from the East Kilbride Town Council agree with it or not, it is good evidence of careful and clear thinking. It is not a document put forward by a few amateurs hoping to gain a little support from one side of the House or the other. It is a very carefully prepared document, whether it is right or wrong. It shows that the case should go to a Select Committee for further consideration.
In view of what has been said on both sides, I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) will press the Amendment, because I do not believe there is a case for so doing. If he were to press it, he would merely weaken the case he genuinely tried to make. If there is a case, it should be examined. The only reason for refusing to have it examined is that there is not a case. It would enormously weaken the hon. Gentleman's position and that of his right hon. and hon. Friends who support the Lanarkshire side if they were to try to stop this matter going to a Select Committee, although I believe they would certainly fail in any such attempt.
Lastly, I want to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). He wondered whether East Kilbride might not have been wiser to go straight for large burgh status instead of taking the intermediate step. One of the really good things about the development of


East Kilbride has been the success of the integration between the Development Corporation and the Town Council. I think it was right for the Town Council to go for small burgh status, because it was in the process of growing up. Everything that has happened since it has got small burgh status has shown that it is absolutely worthy of it and that it thoroughly deserves the success that it has had.
For these reasons, and because I believe that the whole of our democratic way of life and belief in Scotland indicates that we should allow this case to go before a Select Committee, I support the Second Reading of the Bill with my whole heart.

8.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I apologise to those of my hon. Friends who want to speak, but I feel that at this stage it would be wise for the Government to make their own views known so that the matter may be clarified.
I endorse what the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said about the East Kilbride Town Council inasmuch as it has justified its creation as a small burgh. The town council has been remarkably vigorous and co-operative in working side by side with the new town development corporation. It is not always a happy symbiosis in all circumstances, but in this way it has been unique and very successful. Whether it follows from that that the success of the town council as a small burgh justifies it to be a large burgh is hardly for me to say, and I do not propose to do so. This is indeed the Government's view on this matter.
The proponents of the Bill—that is to say, those who would want it to have a Second Reading—can be divided into two groups. There are those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), simply argue that it is only right and proper that the Bill should be discussed before a Select Committee. My hon. Friend is not arguing the merits or demerits of the Bill; he is merely asking for a hearing. If one looks to the HANSARD report of this debate, one will see that this is the expression of view of the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
On the other hand, there are one or two who positively champion the merits of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) is certainly one of them. He is, of course, entitled to express these views as vigorously as he did. My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton), on the other hand, is in the same partisan spirit against the Second Reading of the Bill for very cogent reasons. I do not want to comment on the case which either hon. Gentleman has offered in support of the Second Reading, or in denial of it, although I feel I must comment on one or two of the points that they made. My counsel to the House, on behalf of the Government, is that while we do not comment on the merits of the Bill without having a full discussion of them, we see no reason why a Second Reading should be opposed if the House wishes to enable the Bill to proceed to a Select Committee for fuller discussion of those merits.
In taking that line we have impeccable precedents. In 1962, when the Grangemouth Bill was sponsored, a similar Provisional Order was brought forward and this was turned down by the Chairman and later converted into a Private Bill. The then Government agreed that the Bill should obtain a Second Reading in the House of Lords, and it proceeded to a Select Committee, though no views on its merits were expressed. The Select Committee subsequently reported that the creation of new large burghs should be a matter for general legislation.
I do not think it is for us to conjecture what a Select Committee might or might not say if we were to give this Bill a Second Reading tonight. Certainly it is true that a Royal Commission has been set up, and here I must comment in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell. The Royal Commission has been set up and the Government hope that there will be a report from it in 1968 or shortly thereafter. I emphasise this in case there is any doubt. But I hope, as we all do, that it will be in 1968 and that the discussion and consultation thereafter with the local authorities will not mean undue delay before a Bill is presented by the Government to Parliament. I naturally hope that it might be this Parliament, but that remains to be seen. I say that in


answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell on the question of how imminent is "imminent". That is the best answer I can give him in the circumstances.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the "assertion"—in paragraph 9 of the summary of the case for the Bill in the Statement by East Kilbride—that the hand-over of the new town would be proposed in 1971. I should make it clear that the Government have never suggested that that date is appropriate for such a hand over. It is true that under Section 15 of the New Towns Act, 1946, the Secretary of State is empowered to order the winding up of a development corporation when the purposes for which it was established have been substantially achieved.
Perhaps the confusion in this matter arises because it will be in 1971 or 1972 that East Kilbride will reach its planned population target. That is an entirely different issue. The decision on the future control of new towns is still to be made. It is true that the Government are actively considering this and may want to make a statement as soon as possible. But this is a very complicated matter, as anyone knows who has had responsibility for new towns. It is not easy. We have already seen what happened in England and Wales, though in Scotland we have no comparable instrument such as the new towns Commission. Whether the Government will adopt this is still to be resolved. There is, perhaps, confusion here over the date of 1971 in relation to the so-called hand-over of the town.
The Bill is the conversion of the East Kilbride Provisional Order seeking large burgh status, which was deposited by the Town Council in the Scottish Office last March. When it was deposited in Parliament the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means reported that:
… the order raises questions of public policy of such novelty and importance that it ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order".
In the face of this report, the Secretary of State was bound to refuse the Provisional Order, and the Town Council then decided to proceed by means of a private Bill.
Those of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who know of the

vigorous representation of the constituency by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) will not be surprised to know that she has been making representations to Ministers. I wish to quote from a letter of 16th June this year, which I sent to my hon. Friend on behalf of the Secretary of State, and which simply concerns the question of the Order. Something may be made of the fact that the Secretary of State did not confirm that order, and I want to make the position absolutely clear by quoting the last part of the letter:
This is a difficult and complicated matter, considering on one hand the rapid increase in the population of the burgh and on the other the prospect of a much more general reorganisation of Scottish local government, but you may rest assured that under present circumstances the Secretary of State does not propose to report against the Order. Equally, you will understand, it would not be appropriate for him to recommend to the Commissioners in its favour.
The Secretary of State therefore remained neutral at the East Kilbride Provisional Order stage, as I think is proper in those circumstances, if only because it would have been wrong to deny East Kilbridge an opportunity of making its case by the statutory means open to it. The Town Council has not exhausted those means, and I suggest that in order that full discussion of the Bill's merits should be allowed to proceed the House might reasonably consider that a Second Reading should not be opposed.
I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell that a Second Reading—he will find this laid down in Chapter 37 of the current edition of Erskine May—does not mean endorsement of the principle of a Private Bill, unlike a Public Bill. A Second Reading today would not imply endorsement, and neither could it be called in aid by anyone as endorsement of the Bill in principle by the House of Commons. I realise the depth of my hon. Friend's concern in this matter but, on that assurance and in the light of the very proper comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston that proceedings will start de novo in the Select Committee and not be consequential upon What is said here, I suggest that my hon. Friend might not think it unreasonable, having stated his case so vigorously, to agree that a Second Reading should be


given to the Bill tonight and that a Select Committee should take it up thereafter.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I also urge that the Bill should be given a Second Reading and go to a Select Committee. This is almost a unique occasion in the House, when there seems to be a great measure of unanimity across the Floor. Perhaps this is rather out of character for right hon. and hon. Members opposite because they are usually not in favour of giving anything away. In this case, of course, it is something which belongs to someone else which we are thinking of giving away, so they are not so much bothered about it.
We must keep well in mind the whole situation outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton). Understandably, representing solely landward areas in Lanarkshire, he reflects the county council's point of view. In thinking that the Bill should have a Second Reading, but I recognise the problem, a problem which has been skated over in some ways. There is no question here of lack of democracy. If some of the people who have been making comments had been longer in local government, they would have understood the issues more clearly. The issues are financial.
I feel that the county council has been wrong—though in present circumstances there is a lot to be said for its view—in thinking that it will have to bear the onus of any shortcomings in ratable strength if the Bill ultimately goes through and East Kilbride becomes a large burgh. This question, in the present set-up, highlights the anomalies which abound in Scottish local government today. We commend places such as East Kilbride in their desire to achieve a better status and become large burghs. East Kilbride, a small community of 2,400 in 1946, is now a thriving community of 50,000, with 120 firms which have either contracted to go in or have already started work in East Kilbride, and it is wholly commenable that it should be thriving and striving to become a large burgh. But it will mean something to Lanarkshire County Council in so far as the rateable strength embodied in East Kilbride now will, for certain rating purposes, be lost. This

does not apply to education. The education argument does not hold water because the education service will still be run by the county education authority.
The onus here, in my opinion, is the Government's. The Government must ensure, by whatever means they can under the present local authority grant or equalisation schemes, that areas depleted of a great deal of rateable strength are reimbursed so that services at present given to the people are not in any way diluted.

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Dalyell rose——

Mr. Manuel: I will not give way at the moment.
I am fortunate in that I am speaking after we have had a speech from the Front Bench. If I had spoken before my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I should have asked him whether he intended to remain silent or to tell me the line upon which his argument would proceed. He told us a little. He mentioned the Royal Commission, and, obviously, that indicated that, no matter what we do tonight, there is a Royal Commission considering local government and it will report in five or eight years' time and then we may get some legislation.
But the Government themselves do not believe in this. At present they are proceeding apace with police amalgamations in Scotland, with a vast reorganisation of Scottish water resources and so on. Therefore, if East Kilbride thinks that it has to wait for five or eight years before it can accomplish what it is desirous of accomplishing, it is perfectly justified, in view of what the Government are doing in the local government sphere, in proceeding in the way it is doing.
I hope that a situation will not develop in which, in ways which we do not quite understand, a case will be put up which will destroy East Kilbride's case when it goes before the Select Committee. I do not know how these things operate. Nevertheless, I am certain that we are doing the right thing tonight in showing this degree of unanimity in deciding to give the Bill a Second Reading. A Select Committee should probe the whole circumstances. I would favour East Kilbride becoming a large burgh.
It may be argued that because there is nothing in the 1929 or 1947 Local Government Acts to allow a small burgh


to become a large burgh, the proposal should not go forward. That was the finding arrived at in 1947. This would not be good enough. We now have a situation in which the Government will need to grasp the nettle, and we must recognise that communities growing as East Kilbride is growing want their place in the sun and should have it.

Mr. James Hamilton: Having listened to the debate and particularly to what has been said by the Under-Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (SWITZERLAND)

8.54 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Swiss Federal Council of the Protocol set out in the Schedule to the Order in Council entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Switzerland) Order, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th October, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.
Normally, I should not regard it as appropriate on a reasonably straightforward matter such as this to inflict on the House a speech, a short one, but nevertheless a speech, at the beginning of a short debate, but as the Protocol contains a rather special provision, I thought it would assist the House if I were to say a few words to begin with, and if I have the good fortune, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to catch your eye and am allowed to do so by the House, I shall be only too glad to speak a second time in reply to any points made by any hon. Member in the debate.
This is one of a series of agreements which have become necessary to regulate the deduction of tax on dividends flowing from one country to another as a result of the Corporation Tax. Indeed, this is by no means the first of such agreements.
It provides in that respect—and this is a normal provision—that the rate of deduction shall follow closely the recommendations of the O.E.C.D. in these matters, that is to say, the rate of tax deducted in normal circumstances from dividends flowing from one country to another should be 15 per cent. but that, in the case of a dividend paid by a subsidiary to its parent, the deduction should be at the rate of 5 per cent. For this purpose, what one regards as a parent is a company which has 25 per cent. or more of the voting power. I do not imagine that that will present any problem to the House, but there is another provision which is perhaps a little unusual and was foreshadowed in some of the debates we had on the Finance Act.
There is an anomalous situation in existence under the present double taxation convention with Switzerland. It arises because of the reference in that


Convention to Profits Tax and because of the further reference in the Finance Act, 1965, indicating that, wherever a taxation agreement of this kind refers to profits tax, then it shall have application for Corporation Tax. Because of these references, the anomalous result has followed that such a company making certain interest and royalty payments prior to 6th April, 1966, would find itself receiving relief under two headings. First, it would get relief from its Income Tax assessment in the ordinary way, that being the normal provision. Secondly, it would also, because of the effects of the two provisions I have mentioned, find itself getting relief from Corporation Tax based on profits against which the interest has been set in the period prior to 6th April, 1966.
In short, it would find itself getting relief twice over. Accordingly, therefore, the Protocol makes provision for this and removes the anomaly by saying that, with regard to the period before 6th April, 1966, there shall be no relief of Corporation Tax. That is the normal provision. For example, a company paying interest during, say, the course of 1965 will find that it gets relief during late 1965 from the 1965–66 Income Tax assessment and also, were it not for the Protocol, getting further relief from Corporation Tax payable later on in respect of profits in that same period, that is to say, the calendar year 1965. If it were the calendar year 1965 in respect of which this interest was paid, it would find that the 1966–67 Corporation Tax assessment, based on the profits of the calendar year 1965, would be less than they would otherwise be and the double relief would have been granted. The point is that the Income Tax relief will already have been obtained. The Corporation Tax relief is a relief which would be obtained were this Protocol not approved—a relief which would be obtained on 1st January, 1967, when, for the first time, the reduced Corporation Tax would become payable. If that is put right—I say "put right" because it is an anomaly which, judging from previous debates, the House would wish to withdraw—by approval of the Motion, the second relief will not be obtainable.
It is true, and no one wants to burke the issue, that this provision in the

Protocol does, in effect, have retrospective effect with regard to the calculation of the figure on which Corporation Tax is payable. But it does not have retrospective offect with regard to any payment and therefore no taxpayer is prejudiced, in the sense that he will be paying a figure which is no different from the figure he expected when on this year's Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced, first, what the rate of Corporation Tax would be—and before that nobody could calculate this sum with any precision—and, secondly, that he was proposing to bring in an enabling provision so that this very Protocol could be given effect. That is the special circumstance to which I wished to refer and I hope that I have explained it to the satisfaction of the House.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is interesting to find that on the seventh or eighth of these revised double taxation conventions the Government have changed the team, and I am bound to think that I might make a comparable suggestion to those of my right hon. Friends who choose the team on this side of the House. The prospect of 74 more of these double taxation agreements is not one of which I am enamoured, although I wonder how much it would be worth if I were paid on piece work.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having given his explanation of perhaps the most important provision of the Protocol. I shall return to it later and say at this stage only that I doubt whether anyone listening to the right hon. Gentleman would have recognised what had happened in these circumstances.
The changes made by the Protocol fall into three categories. There are the changes necessitated by the major alteration in our system of company taxation. One refers particularly to Article 1, dealing with the definition of the tax to be covered, and to Article 3, dealing with the question of dividends, the withholding tax on dividends and so on. Secondly, the opportunity has been taken to make a number of minor tidying-up alterations. Thirdly, there is the retrospective withdrawal of relief relating to interest and royalties paid by a United Kingdom company to a Swiss recipient


a matter with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt. I will deal with each of the three in turn.
On the first, there is no difference in this Protocol from a number of others which have already been criticised from my side of the House. However, I wonder whether the Chief Secretary would be prepared to give some estimate of what the total net loss to the United Kingdom balance of payments will be when all these double taxation conventions have been revised in the same way. The Chief Secretary will recollect that when the Financial Secretary was dealing with the United States Convention earlier this year, he estimated that its effect was a loss to the United Kingdom balance of payments of about £11 million a year. That was only one, albeit the most important, of the conventions. There are between 70 and 80 altogether and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to give some idea of what the whole exercise will cost this country.
I have one or two comments to make about the tidying-up amendments, as there are several provisions which seem to require some explanation. I draw the Chief Secretary's attention to paragraph 3 of Article 4, which substitutes a new Article XIV. This is new to me, but it may not be new in these conventions. I cannot claim to have studied them all.
This is a provision which eliminates any question of the giving of personal reliefs to a resident of one territory where his only income from the other territory in respect of which the personal reliefs arise consist of "dividends, interest or royalties". Is this a usual provision? Why should, let us say, a Swiss resident's entitlement to the due proportion under United Kingdom law of his personal reliefs in respect of any United Kingdom income which he may enjoy be taken away if that income consists solely of dividends, interests or royalties?
What is the background to this provision and is there any exact meaning to be given to the word "solely" in the third line of the paragraph? Let us say that the Swiss resident had written an article for publication in a United Kingdom journal and had been paid a fee for it, or had transacted some small piece of business from an establishment in the United Kingdom which left him with a

United Kingdom source. Does that mean that, upon his possession of that one piece of income other than dividends, interest and royalties, he would immediately become entitled to personal reliefs on the basis, not only of that income, but also on any other dividends, interest and royalties which he may have had?
If this is the case, it is a somewhat strange provision, because it means that a distinction will be drawn between two Swiss taxpayers whose investment income in this country is identical except that one happens to have a very small, almost negligible piece of earned income, qualifying him for the reliefs.
The second of these minor Amendments arises under Article 8 of the Protocol which substitutes a new Paragraph 4 in Article XVIII of the existing Convention. This Article apparently limits the right of one of the territories with regard to withholding the tax on dividends. The relevant words are the last four and a half lines. I shall begin at the beginning of the paragraph which says:
Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed…as restricting the deduction of United Kingdom income tax from dividends paid to a permanent establishment in the United Kingdom of a company which is a resident of Switzerland, if such dividends are not subject to United Kingdom corporation tax in the hands of the recipient.
Why is this provision necessary? In what circumstances in this country could that provision have any operation, with the law on the subject of dividends as it now stands? What does the provision achieve?
The third category of changes which the Protocol makes deals with the retrospective withdrawal of relief. This is achieved by Articles 4 and 5 of the Protocol which substitutes new Articles VII and VIIA in the existing Convention. This has to be linked with the commencement provisions in Article 10 and particularly the provision to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in Paragraph 4 of Article 10. The Chief Secretary may recollect that this provision was discussed in Committee on this year's Finance Bill when the matter was raised on what was then Clause 31 of the Bill and What is now Section 33 of the Act.
The Financial Secretary on that occasion explained the purpose of the Section as an enabling Section, allowing this retrospective withdrawal to come before


the House tonight, and made it clear that this was the only purpose of the Section. I believe that he said that it was the sole purpose of the Section. It was aimed at this Protocol. As he said when that Section was debated, this House would have had no right even to consider a Protocol retrospectively withdrawing relief.
I was not particularly impressed by the Chief Secretary's arguments to seek to prove to the House that this was not a retrospective withdrawal of relief. Why, otherwise, did we spend some time both in Committee and on Report introducing a special new Clause into the Finance Bill purely to give the House the right to consider a Protocol which had a retrospective withdrawal of relief? If this is not retrospective why was that Section necessary?
The Chief Secretary has explained what the purpose was and how it was that there arose what the Financial Secretary was honest enough on that occasion to call "a manifest error." As the hon. and learned Gentleman put it, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher):
… someone made a mistake."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 530.]
Indeed, it is clear that someone made a mistake. When Section 64 of the 1965 Finance Act was passed, nobody had in mind the rather obscure provision of this one Convention with Switzerland, which made that Section, as it applied to this Convention, a nonsense.
We know that the 1965 Finance Act was rushed through the House in a manner which can only be described as disgraceful. I had reason from this Dispatch Box to criticise the Government for another error. It was to correct another relief that they had to withdraw in this year's Finance Bill the provision of Section 85 of the 1965 Act relating to the taxation of pre-Corporation Tax profits. The Chief Secretary will remember the lengthy debates on that subject.
On that occasion, I reminded the House that it was we on this side who had been criticised by the Prime Minister for what he was pleased to call our "tomfoolery", when the Bill which we were then fighting contained a number of manifest errors which the Government have since had to put right.
Here is another one and one in which there is retrospective correction. Retrospective legislation, in whatever form it comes, is always regrettable, always undesirable and it always requires the strongest justification. We have not had that justification from the Chief Secretary this evening. This correction is the result of the hasty, ill-considered, hurriedly-drafted legislation, when the draftsmen were put in an impossible position by the Government, because of the way in which they handled their business.
How the professionals in the Inland Revenue must hate to bring forward a Section like Section 33 of the Act which we discussed this year and provisions such as we have in this Convention, as they reflect sadly on their professional competence. How they must hate it all the more when it involves a double taxation convention, when they have to go to their opposite numbers in another country and confess that they made what the hon. and learned Gentleman called "a manifest error."
The fault lies squarely on right hon. Gentlemen opposite who forced through this legislation in the way in which no complicated fiscal legislation ought ever to be foisted on the House. In view of this, it is right that the right hon. Gentleman should answer a number of questions relating to this particular retrospective withdrawal of relief.
First, is this the only case which we shall have under Section 33 of the 1966 Finance Act? Is this the only Convention where a mistake will be found to have occurred? The Financial Secretary on Report used these words:
… all that we are seeking to do here is to take powers for the House, to enable the House to consider the provisions which, if approved, would have the effect of withdrawing certain reliefs retrospectively"—
I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the word "retrospectively"—
and to enable them to be considered when we look at the protocol to the Swiss Agreement. That is the sole purpose for which the Clause was drawn.
I should be grateful if the Chief Secretary could confirm that there will be no other Convention to which amendment must be made, making use of this retrospective provision in Section 33.
Further on, the Financial Secretary said, and this was confirmed this evening by the Chief Secretary, that this would


take effect only in relation to Corporation Tax computed according to pre-6th-April-of-this-year profits, and went on to say:
One rather exceptional case is covered by the protocol where the provision will also apply to payments made after 6th April."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1966; Vol. 731, c. 1496.]
He added that he did not think it right at that stage to weary the Committee, but that the opportunity would arise when we consider this Protocol. It is right that the Chief Secretary should make it clear how it is that this Protocol can affect payments made after 6th April this year.
The third question, on which the right hon. Gentleman has gone some way to give assurances is: can he categorically say that there will be no question under this retrospective provision of the Revenue attempting to claw back relief it may already have given? I was not impressed with the right hon. Gentleman's argument that no payment of Corporation Tax has yet been made and that, therefore, no question of retrospective legislation arises. The fact is that companies have for many months—in some cases for well over a year, and sometimes for nearly two years—already been trading under the Corporation Tax system, and they were entitled to believe that with the legislation as it stood they should have this relief as a transitional measure. If they have paid tax on that basis, therefore, will there be no question of a drawing back by the Revenue of the relief given?
Article 5 of the Protocol substitutes the new Article VII A to which I have already referred, and I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 6 of Article VII A. It deals with royalties, and states:
(6) Where, owing to a special relationship between the payer and the recipient, or between bot hof them and some other person the amount of the royalties paid exceeds the amount which would have been agreed upon by the payer and the recipient in the absence of such relationship, the provisions of this Article shall apply only to the last-mentioned amount. In that case, the excess part of the payments, if treated as a dividend or distribution of a company, shall be taxed in accordance with Article VI.
I am sure that when I read that passage to the Chief Secretary he, at any rate, will recall the lengthy debates we had in

Committee last year and this year on the Finance Bills on the question of royalties paid by a close company to a participator.
He will remember that we on this side tried over and over again to persuade the Government that it would be right in the case of royalties, as they had already agreed with copyrights, that only so much of the royalty as exceeded the commercial rate—a rate that would have been agreed in the absence of any special relationship—should be treated as a distribution. Over and over again we tried, and over and over again we failed.
I should like to read just one passage from the right hon. Gentleman's own speech to the House on the subject. He said:
It is just not possible, without having argument upon argument and going to the courts, to arrive at a regularly accepted market price for patent royalties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 392.]
This is exactly what this convention will require people to do. This is exactly the distinction that paragraph 6 of the new Article VII A will oblige the Revenue to make. How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his speeches, his many speeches on the subject—I have only quoted one short extract—with what I read to the House earlier from this convention? Does he expect argument upon argument in order to decide what rate of royalty would have been agreed between parties in the absence of any special relationship?
How does he reconcile this with what he told the House was over a third of a century of professional experience as an accountant which led him to take that view? Does he think that somehow, as a result of further personal experience as an accountant, it will be much easier when dealing with royalties paid from one country to another—that which he said would be impossible when paid by a close company to a participator?
This is a case where the Government have a good deal of explanation to make. They have denied over and over again in this House and in Committee that this sort of calculation was possible in relation to royalties paid by close companies, and here we have virtually the identical concept in a double taxation convention between this country and


Switzerland. In the one case, they told us that it could not work; in this case, they tell us that it is going to work.
I have asked the Chief Secretary a number of important questions which arise on this convention. I hope that he will have an opportunity to reply after others of my hon. Friends have spoken.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: I wish to support the points which have been made with great lucidity and clarity by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) drawing upon his knowledge of the detail of these Protocols and their relevance to our financial situation at home and abroad which has been debated in recent Finance Bills.
I find that my name was appended to the original Protocol signed in 1954, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who signed the present one, will remember the occasion in the same way as I remember that earlier one. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary did not sign it, which is a pity in some ways because he will not go out into the world afterwards and find, as I did, that one has considerable acclaim in certain esoteric financial circles for the fact that one's name has been put on to this sort of Protocol.
One of the things that started happening in the early 1950s was that these agreements released certain financial effort to the benefit not only of this country but other countries with whom we made such agreements. As a result of the original Protocol of 1954, considerable progress was made in investment, taxation agreements and business activities between Switzerland and Britain. I believe that such agreements are vital in the modern world. They are the basis of international co-operation, especially in Europe, and the Swiss obviously are an extremely important element in that.
My hon. Friend mentioned some 70 to 80 agreements which will be coming before the House. However, I believe that with the exception of the one with the United States, none will be more important than this one with Switzerland. I remember a brilliant speech made by Mr. Frank Figgures, that distinguished

Parliamentarian, and now back in the Treasury, in the summer of 1965 about the importance of investment. From my business knowledge of what happened as a result of the earlier Protocol, it seems to me that investment is often overlooked in the co-operation that goes on in the free trade areas. It is easy to talk about goods and removing tariffs, which are to be removed by the end of this year, but we neglect the importance of such financial agreements as this one which can release a great deal of energy and useful investment, providing that individuals know what their tax is going to be. So, while I am glad that our puny efforts of 1954 have been brought up-to-date by the right hon. Gentleman, I hope at the same time that they will be as beneficial as the last Protocol was.
I hope that the Government will not seek ways of blocking productive investment between Switzerland and this country. Above all, I hope that the Chief Secretary will give us a satisfactory answer about retrospection, because it is a matter which is very disturbing to business people who have made their plans on the basis of existing taxation. When they find that the tax position is changed, it raises much greater difficulties than anyone realises unless he is a highly skilled accountant like the right hon. Gentleman.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Diamond: May I say to the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) that I do not believe that he will have very secure ground on which to base his hope that his team will be changed. The change on this side is purely temporary, I am glad to say, to accommodate my hon. and learned Friend who, at the moment, is making a most important speech to a savings movement, which I am sure the House will forgive him for attending.
May I deal first with the important element of this Order which, as expected, has caused some anxiety. May I try to put it as fairly as I can without attempting to burk any part of it? I refer, of course, to the allegation of retrospective legislation, and the question why was it necessary to have special enabling powers, and so on, if the matter was not so important. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, enabling powers are


necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Protocol shall override the provisions of the Finance Act; otherwise the Finance Act would be supreme. We therefore give powers in the Finance Act to prevent this. That would be the case whether the overriding were to do with retrospection or not.
As to retrospection, and as to people who have to make new provision because they have been working under mistaken assumptions, I repeat what I said. We are retrospectively altering the basis on which a calculation of Corporation Tax payable on the 1st January next is made. Prior to April of this year, prior to the introduction of the Budget, nobody—no firm, no company—could have calculated its Corporation Tax liability. It could not do so for the simple reason that however carefully it went through the steps of the calculation, when it came to the final figure and said, "On £X, the Corporation Tax payable is" (and that £X will have included in certain cases an allowance which is now being withdrawn) it could not have proceeded any further because until Budget day it did not know what figure to take for the rate of Corporation Tax. Therefore, there is no company which could have made precise provision for its Corporation Tax liability until Budget day.
When Budget day came, the Chancellor filled in the gap and enabled companies to make that precise provision by saying two things: first, what the rate of Corporation Tax was to be, and, secondly that this allowance was to be withdrawn. Thus, from that moment, which had never been the case previously, a correct calculation of the tax was capable of being made, and there is no question, therefore, of anybody's calculated liability for Corporation Tax being amended. I hope that I have put the position absolutely fairly and accurately.
Of course my hon. and learned Friend said that there had been an error, and of course I took it from the House and from what had previously been said that the Opposition were at one with the Government in wishing that a double relief for the payment of interest granted in error should be withdrawn. I therefore did not labour the point about justification, for which the hon. Gentleman has asked. I am sure that there is no need to justify the simple proposition that

if an error is made in a provision in a Finance Bill—an error in the sense that it was not immediately appreciated that of all the double taxation agreements there was one which had a form of words embodied in it which when related to the provision to which I have referred would have the anomalous effect of giving relief twice over—it should be put right.
That was the error that was made. It is one which anybody is capable of making, and one for which I, as Minister, accept full responsibility. It is clear that, an error having been made, and double relief flowing from it, the Opposition, just as much as the Government would want that relief to be withdrawn and the matter put right. That is the justification, which is a very reasonable one.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misunderstand the case made from this side of the House. It is not that it is wrong to correct the anomaly and to put this manifest error right; we are saying that the Government misled the trading community, especially those who make substantial payments of interest and royalties to Swiss recipients. I cannot accept that it is not a valid criticism, because the rate of Corporation Tax was not fixed.

Mr. Diamond: I wonder how many of the people to whom the hon. Member has referred were misled into taking action of any kind different to the action that they otherwise would have taken. I cannot think of one case. There was no misleading in any real sense. Any misleading that took place was in the sense that it was said, "When the tax was announced, we believed that at that stage you will be able to claim certain amounts twice over". For those who thought that they could claim twice over—and there were not many such—they could not make the calculation. On what calculation was capable of being made they knew that the allowance would be received once and not twice over, just as it would be in the ordinary case.
To that extent, although I accept responsibility for not having observed that the words embedded in one only of all these double taxation agreements had an effect which, combined with the provisions in the Finance Bill, would result in the curious anomaly to which


I have referred, I doubt whether it is the gravest error that has ever been committed or will be committed in our tax legisation. I do not want to minimise it; I am only glad that we are able to put it right before anybody has suffered any damage of any kind.
The hon. Member asked me a series of detailed questions which I shall now attempt to answer. First, he asked whether this was the only case. He quoted what my hon. and learned Friend had said. I repeat that what my hon. and learned Friend said on that occasion still stands. I have no reason to believe that his words were incorrect in any sense. The hon. Gentleman then asked whether I could give an assurance that there would be no clawing back of relief already given. I cannot think of any case where relief could have been given because, as I have indicated, reference to payment means payment due on 1st January, 1967, and it is not within my knowledge that anybody has been so idiosyncratic as to insist upon paying his Corporation Tax liability months ahead of the due date.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the one exceptional case to which the Financial Secretary drew attention? If he cannot indicate what this would be at this stage, perhaps it can be dealt with by correspondence. It would be useful to know what the one case is that occurred after 6th April, 1964, which could be covered by this withdrawal of relief.

Mr. Diamond: Offhand, I cannot think of such a case. Obviously, my hon. and learned Friend had a particular case in mind. I will gladly do what the hon. Member invites me to do and drop him a line on the matter.
He then asked me what effect the whole exercise of amending these various double taxation agreements would have on the balance of payments. He referred to an answer which my hon. and learned Friend had given earlier. That was in reference to the cost to the Exchequer and not to the balance of payments, in relation to the American agreement. I cannot make any estimate as to the cost in respect of the balance of payments of the American

agreement or this agreement, or of the various agreements that will have to be brought in following the introduction of Corporation Tax, which is what the hon. Member was anxious to ascertain.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a question with regard to Article XVIII. The provision here is to make it clear that dividends paid by a United Kingdom company to a branch here of a Swiss parent company cannot be paid without deduction of any United Kingdom tax, as could dividends from a United Kingdom subsidiary company to a United Kingdom parent.
The hon. Gentleman then asked me about Article XIV, which refers to the exclusion of cases where the income consists solely of dividends, interest and royalties. This provision is intended as a means of simplifying the calculations. Interest and royalties are exempt. Dividends suffer at 15 per cent. or, if it is a subsidiary paying dividends to its parent, 5 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about paragraph 6 of Article VII A and laid stress on this comment. I should explain that this follows the recommendation of the Fiscal Committee of the O.E.C.D. of which both the United Kingdom and Switzerland are members. If necessary, we will have the benefit of consultation with the Swiss Revenue about what is an arm's-length price.
I believe I have answered all questions, except one to which I will reply by correspondence. I note with pleasure what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) said. In view of the explanations I have given, I hope the House will be good enough to pass the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Swiss Federal Council of the Protocol set out in the Schedule to the Order in Council entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Switzerland) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th October, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — SINGAPORE (GIFT OF BOOKCASE)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. James Davidson, Mr. Deedes, Captain Walter Elliot, Mr. Charles Pannell, and Mr. S. C. Silkin have leave of absence to present, on behalf of this House, a Bookcase containing Parliamentary and Constitutional reference books to the Parliament of Singapore.—[Mr. Crossman.]

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I rise to oppose the Motion because I wish to obtain some information as to the devious means and methods whereby these particular delegations are appointed, or selected, or elected.
Some 20 years ago, I raised a similar question on a similar occasion and was told that. because I was so new and inexperienced in the membership of the House, it was very wrong of me, after being here for only a couple of years, to have the temerity to raise—indeed, even to think of raising—such a question. I hope, having been here a few years longer, it will not be suggested that I am doing anything wrong in raising this question. I know, of course, that it is not the custom or the practice for such Motions to be debated. May I interpose by saying that I was told on the very highest authority, by one very much up in the establishment, that so long as I am here I would never get anything—and it seems as if I never shall; so here let me declare that there is no purpose in my expecting ever to get anything. I declare out immediately. I know that that is the position.
Over the years I have been told—it has been generally true—that those who are sent on these visits are invariably right hon. or hon. Members with long experience in the House, often having held Ministerial rank. This does not seem to apply in this case.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will listen to the points I shall make after he has finished discussing something with one of the Whips. I want to know whether there is any relationship in the method by which one gets appointed. Does one make application? Does one have a word with the Whips? How does one do it? Originally I was told that it was done on the basis of seniority and length of

service. It can hardly be said that that is the basis in this case. It certainly is not so in the case of one individual who it is proposed should go on this visit.
If it were suggested that, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) were to go on this trip, that would be right and proper, because we all know of the wonderful work my right hon. Friend has done for many years, both in the House and outside, in Commonwealth and Colonial activities.
I do not know whether the C.P.A. is contacted or consulted. Strangely enough, I have heard today that in connection with a recent delegation the advice of the C.P.A. was sought. I do not know whether the Association does advise on this, but apparently one of our colleagues was sent to a Commonwealth country. The man who was selected to attend celebrations in a Commonwealth country was the only Member on this side who is against the Labour Party's policy on Rhodesia. Yet he went to one of our Commonwealth countries for the purpose of celebrating independence. I am not against the Member concerned, but surely if an hon. Gentleman is to go for the purpose of representing the House at celebrations it should be someone who is persona grata with Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should speak to this particular selection.

Mr. Lewis: I was going to ask whether in this case such august bodies as the C.P.A. are consulted, or is it done through the Whips' Office, or through the usual channels?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I am listening to my hon. Friend with the greatest attention. I suppose he is criticising the members of the delegation. Is it that there is some particular deficiency in any particular Member to which he wants to draw attention?

Mr. Lewis: No. I thought that my right hon. Friend was talking to a Whip. If he was, he could not listen to me and talk to a Whip at the same time. That was why I called his attention to the fact that I was speaking. If he had been


listening, he would have heard my argument. I shall repeat it, subject to Mr. Speaker's giving me permission, so that I shall not be accused of tedious repetition.
I said that I wanted to know how these visits are organised and in what way those concerned are selected. I said that I first raised this question about 20 years ago. This cannot affect any person mentioned in the Motion, because to the best of my knowledge and belief none of them was here 20 years ago, so I could not then have been attacking any of them and I am not attacking any of them particularly now. I do not know how they are selected, appointed, or elected. Does one put one's name forward?
I am not going into the matter of the C.P.A. in full. I give it merely as an example. One can apply to the C.P.A. year after year but one never gets one's name on the list. I have never heard the facts about this selection. How does one get to put one's name in? I have been told already that I shall never be allowed anything at all in the House. I have been told this on the very highest authority. I therefore rule myself out.
Some of my hon. Friends who have only recently come to the House ask me how this is worked. I tell them that I do not know.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: By Zulu tribal law.

Mr. Lewis: I do not know whether it is done by Zulu tribal law. I should like to know, so that when one of my hon. Friends approaches me I can say "This is what one does. One sees the Leader of the House. He says 'In this case this chap has been to Singapore. He has probably got friends there or he has got some connection and hence he can apply'" If it is a visit to one of the other Commonwealth countries which will eventually get home rule—it might be Wales—it would be nice for one of my Welsh hon. Friends, and I could say to him, "This is one of the things you should put in for. As you have got Welsh blood in you, you might stand a chance."
Unless one knows how to do this, one cannot give advice. I should always be happy to explain the position if I were

able. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) interrupted and said that it might depend upon tribal law. If that is so, I should like to know. I was not able to get the information 20 years ago. I have tried through the usual channels and I have not been successful. If there are some means of using the usual channels perhaps we can be told how it is done. Perhaps there is an unofficial group. Does one have to be a member of some unofficial group. I see that the Whips are advising the Leader of the House on how he should reply. I do not know whether the Whips are involved. Perhaps one has to belong to one of those groups, which the Leader of the House remembers, which was not registered in his day. I have never had an opportunity of becoming a member of either his group or of any of the present groups. There might be a Singapore group of which I am not aware. The Leader of the House ought to tell us.
I do not think any of the hon. Members whose names appear in this Motion are present at the moment. Therefore, I cannot ask them how they got their names on the list. The only alternative is to ask the Leader of the House to explain so that I can tell my friends what is the method of getting on to the list—here comes another of the Whips to give advice—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member need not interrupt himself.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to interrupt myself because I know that the Whips can do it through the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House interrupted me a little while ago to say that he did not understand what I was saying. I commented that he was getting advice from the Whips, and whilst I was then speaking a Whip came into the Chamber. Now another Whip has come——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please come to the subject of the Motion?

Mr. Lewis: What I am saying is that if this is decided through the Whips, will my right hon. Friend tell me which Whip one should approach? How does one get into this inner circle? That is all.

9.48 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): We had assumed until recently that we should have a normal debate on this Motion, but my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has raised this interesting problem of his experience over the last 20 years and his failure to become a member of a delegation. I can only tell him that I share his apparent, as he thought, unique experience. In the course of 20 years I had the same misfortune as he has had. Never once was I invited to form a part of any delegation at all. But I must admit that it never occurred to me that this was a subject which one should raise on the Floor of the House of Commons.
Our job here this evening is to move a Motion. I moved it formally because a gift is to be made to a Commonwealth country and we were deciding to select a delegation to go with that gift. The delegation, like all delegations, has been selected with the help of Mr. Speaker. I am glad to say that my hon. Friend had nothing of any kind to say in criticism of the membership of that delegation. I simply say to my hon. Friend that the sort of information which he needs after 20 years, and which, perhaps, I needed after 20 years, is not to be obtained on the Floor of the House but more easily by ordinary conversation with others. If my hon. Friend has no criticism of the membership of the delegation, I suggest that the House should approve the Motion, which I had hoped to move only formally, and proceed to other business.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That Mr. James Davidson, Mr. Deedes, Captain Walter Elliot. Mr. Charles Pannell. and Mr. S. C. Silkin have leave of absence to present, on behalf of this House, a Bookcase containing Parliamentary and Constitutional reference books to the Parliament of Singapore.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS, &c.) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Ross.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS, amp;c.) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the giving of financial assistance towards the provision of houses in Scotland, and for matters connected with the aforesaid purposes, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of subsidies in respect of houses, or of the cost of houses or of the cost of sites of houses, approved by the Secretary of State and provided by—

(i) a local authority, or
(ii) a development corporation, in pursuance of authorised arrangements made with a local authority or otherwise, or
(iii) a housing association in pursuance of arrangements made with a local authority or with the Secretary of State, or
(iv) the Scottish Special Housing Association; and

(b) of sums in lieu of subsidies which have ceased to be payable on the transfer or lease of any houses, hostels, or other land;

(2) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the amounts payable—

(a) under section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950; and
(b) by reason of the amendment of Schedules 1 and 2 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962;

(3) such increases in the sums which may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised


by borrowing, or paid or repaid into the Exchequer, as may result from increasing to £145 million (or such greater sum, not exceeding £170 million, as the Secretary of State may by order specify) the limit imposed on the aggregate amount of advances which may be made to the Scottish Special Housing Association under proviso (i) to section 18(1) of the said Act of 1962, and such increases as may thus result in any sums payable under section 1 or 19 of the said Act out of moneys provided by Parliament.—[Dr. Mabon.]

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I wish to ask just two questions on this Money Resolution, and I am glad to see both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State in their places.
First, in paragraph (1, a) of the Resolution we read
of subsidies in respect of houses, or of the cost of houses…
It is to the words
or of the cost houses
that I would direct attention. Does this cover houses which may be acquired by an authority, but not necessarily built by a local authority? If that is the case, it could be that the houses might not be new. If so, what would the subsidy arrangements be?
Later in the Resolution there are the words "provided by", and it is not clear whether they mean that the houses are necessarily built by the local authority and are new houses so built. If this wording is wide enough to include houses that can be acquired by a local authority, and if they are not new houses that have just been built, what will be the intention for the arrangement for the subsidy? For new houses the subsidy would be paid for loan charges over a period of 60 years, but if the houses were five years old would there be separate arrangements so that the subsidy is paid for 55 years or a shorter time?
My second inquiry relates to paragraph (1, a, ii). There we read:
a development corporation, in pursuance of authorised arrangements made with a local authority or otherwise,…
We quite understand why the arrangements should include a development corporation, and very often the arrangements for house building would be made with the local authority. The words "or otherwise" could cover a large number

of circumstances. Presumably, they cover arrangements which authorities make and which are approved by the Secretary of State, but do they cover other situations, for example, arrangements with housing associations?
Housing associations are mentioned in paragraph (1, a, iii), but here it is
in pursuance of arrangements made with a local authority or with the Secretary of State".
I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will explain what these cryptic words "or otherwise" mean and what situations the Secretary of State foresees in which a development corporation will be eligible for subsidy for houses otherwise than in pursuance of arrangements made with a local authority.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) will appreciate that the Resolution is deliberately drafted in broad general terms, partly because of the difficulty in specifying exact amounts for each form of subsidy covered by the Bill. Moreover, the Secretary of State, who often criticised Financial Resolutions in the House, was anxious to ensure that the broad terms of the Resolution would accord with the wishes of the House, and we have deliberately phrased it in this way. However, I can understand why the hon. Gentleman is puzzled by some of the phraseology, and I am delighted to answer his two questions.
First, the phrase
or of the cost of the houses".
This is a reference not only to the aggregate cost subsidy relating to the cost of houses in Clauses 2 and 3 but also to payments for houses purchased after completion, the reference being to Clause 14. The subsidy arrangements for old houses acquired by a local authority are rather different. No subsidy is intended in these circumstances. Subsidy will be payable on houses which are new, that is to say, never occupied, and which the local authority has acquired by purchase. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was thinking specifically of Clause 14. I hope that that clarifies the position.
The hon. Gentleman next asked about sub-paragraph (a, ii), with reference to the position of development corporations and


the meaning of the phrase "or otherwise". He is right in anticipating the reference to a housing association in subparagraph (a, iii). This is a reference to any house building which a new town development corporation may engage in as a housing association in terms of Section 80 read with Section 83 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, where the words are:
authorised arrangements made with a local authority".
I hope that that explains these two points and that the hon. Gentleman will accept the Resolution as well drawn.

Mr. G. Campbell: Does that mean that "or otherwise" simply covers the situation of a housing association and not other situations? The hon. Gentleman has agreed that housing associations are covered by this. Is that the only case? Are there other bodies which would be brought in under the words "or otherwise"?

Dr. Mabon: Offhand, I confess that I cannot think of anything other than housing associations. The Resolution was deliberately drawn in order to pick up both Sections 80 and 83, and we phrased it in that way. I am quite ready to look into it further to see whether something else is drawn in. So far as I am aware, it would in this case be inadvertent. However, whether that is so or not, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is better to have it drawn in this way rather than be restrictive. This has been the point consistently urged by my right hon. Friend in the House, and I am glad that it has been taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to education, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under section 102 or section 103 of the Education Act 1944 which is attributable to the raising from three-fourths to four-fifths of the proportion

of the expenditure which may be met by contributions or grants under those sections;
(b) the making out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants not exceeding four-fifths of the expenditure and of loans in respect of the expenditure, incurred by managers or governors of aided schools or special agreement schools in the provision of sites or buildings for such schools;
(c) the making out of moneys provided by Parliament of loans in respect of capital expenditure incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of persons other than local education authorities in connection with the provision, replacement, extension, improvement, furnishing or equipment of colleges of education;
(d) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Rate-Deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland;
(e) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under the said enactments in respect of general grants which may arise from any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the expenditure relevant to the fixing of the aggregate amounts of those grants;

but paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Resolution do not extend to contributions and grants in respect of expenditure in respect of work which—

(i) was begun before 4th July 1966, or
(ii) was approved by the Secretary of State before that date under section 13(6) of the Education Act 1944 or under any arrangements relating to work to which that section does not apply, or
(iii) was included in a programme notified to a local education authority as the main building programme approved by the Secretary of State for the twelve months beginning with April 1966 or for any earlier period,

or in respect of expenditure on the provision of the site on which or buildings to which any such work was done or proposed to be done.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to remove (with retrospective effect) the time limit of five years imposed by section 13(1) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act 1960, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DISABLEMENT PENSION (MR. ARMES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

10.0 p.m.

Dr. Hugh Gray: It is not unusual for citizens to feel that they are wronged. It is perhaps more unusual when a citizen not only feels that he is wronged but knows that his Member of Parliament, his doctor and all the citizens of the village in which he lives share that view.
The facts of the case are as follows. Mr. Armes, who is an agricultural worker, was injured on 24th December, 1964, in the course of his work. He was felling a tree, a rope broke, and he fell over backwards and suffered an injury to his foot. He has never been the same man since. Previously he was extremely healthy and active. He had worked for the same employer, except for a short break, for more than 14 years, he had attended work regularly and had never been ill. In fact, he was a healthy and fit man. But since that day this has not been so, and in 1965, as his employer tells me in a letter, he limped a great deal. He can no longer climb a ladder and cannot cut grass all day and at the end of his day's work he is a tired man.
Following his injury, Mr. Armes was examined by a medical board on 11th February, 1966, which awarded him an assessment of 20 per cent. provisionally from 14th March, 1965, to 13th March, 1967. The Minister apparently disagreed with this not very generous finding, and referred the case to the medical appeals tribunal, which eventually decided that the award should be reduced to 5 per cent., it reaching this decision because it considered that Mr. Armes's disablement was due to a prior osteoarthritic condition in his foot.
It is commonly thought that most of us have potential arthritic conditions in our bones. Doctors share this view. Perhaps in years to come my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I will suffer from arthritis. But to claim that this condition existed overtly previously—it did not manifest itself in the man for a single moment—and that his

accident precipitated it further seems patently absurd. It would be as ridiculous to hold that women by their very nature are subject to pregnancy. As far as I know, no man taken to court for a maintenance order has yet pleaded this as a ground for the order not being made against him.
Mr. Armes's doctor has given me permission to read his letter, which says:
I casually noticed how badly this man walked as we were both going to see Norwich City play football at Norwich about 25.1.65. It appeared that he had consulted a partner of mine on 27.12.64"—
three days after the accident—
after he had an ankle injury on the 24th. My partner did not think the injury sufficient enough to warrant sending him to casualty for investigation, such as X-ray, and so you can understand how I felt when I saw him limping. On 4.2.65 an orthopaedic surgeon who saw him reported that, 'X-ray of ankle and foot shows no boney injury, but arthritic changes in the ankle'. Despite considerable treatment ever since this man continues to have pain and discomfort in his left ankle joint. A new orthopaedic surgeon, who has recently come to live here, saw him on 30.3.66 and on reviewing the case said he felt that to ease his pain he was prepared to fix the joint by the operation of arthrodesis. He saw no other way of easing his pain. Mr. Armes is to consider this at the end of the holiday season.
When I examined him tonight"—
12th May, 1966—
I found the ankle joint stiff and limited in all movements. The hallux rigidus which was noted by the Medical Board is in fact an arthritic joint, as all the signs of arthritis are present there. I think this man has a good case. He is not a malingerer, and even if he might have developed arthritis in this ankle joint at some later date, I have no doubt that his injury precipitated the traumatic arthritis which has subsequently developed. I think this chap has done very well indeed in carrying on his job and suffering this pain and misery, when many patients I know would have been sitting down and resting the joint and drawing their insurance money by now. and the Medical Board could have done nothing about it.
I have put the case in simple terms and I am sure that people will agree with me that it cannot be argued, when a man has been perfectly fit before an accident and that accident precipitates a condition that he has never experienced before and which continues for years afterwards, that the injury can be treated as a 5 per cent. injury. I have written to my hon. Friend about this case on a number of occasions, but it often happens that, when one exchanges ideas with people through the


medium of the voice rather than the pen, they understand the underlying conditions better. I am not suggesting that this is a case of Antigone, in which one should make a desperate appeal to natural law, but this case involves a basic principle of justice and I appeal to my hon. Friend, who has all the facts before him, to reconsider them now and say that he will do something about this case.
I appeal to him not to dismiss the case by some kind of formality, by saying that a further appeal cannot be entertained. Surely my hon. Friend can refer the case back to the board. Along general lines, I suggest that, in future, there is obviously a case for consulting general practitioners about their patients, particularly when they have known them for many years—known them intimately and well.
One realises that, in such cases, there may be people who take advantage of a pre-existing condition but that brings me back to the original point. In Mr. Armes's case, this condition had never manifested itself before. One must admit that at least it was precipitated by the accident. That is why the original award of 20 per cent., with which the Minister apparently did not agree, was not very generous but at least it was along approximately the right lines. But 5 per cent. is not. I appeal to my hon. Friend to reconsider the case and say that he will do something which will convince not only Mr. Armes but my constituents and the citizens of this country that, when an injustice is exposed, whatever the technical objections, the Minister will act.

10.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Harold Davies): I know full well the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray) with this case. He has written to me—he has done more than that for on a number of occasions we have spoken about it. I want briefly to set out the facts and then lead to my summing up of the points at issue.
As my hon. Friend has said, on 24th December, 1964, Mr. Armes fell and injured his ankle while tree clearing at work. He claimed and was paid injury benefit under the Industrial Injuries Scheme for two periods between 28th December, 1964, and 13th June, 1965. Then, on 15th April, 1965, he claimed disablement benefit. As it is required

to be, his claim was referred to an independent medical board, which decided that he was suffering a loss of faculty, due to his accident, which it provisionally assessed at 20 per cent. for one year ending 13th March, 1966.
He was awarded a disablement pension for this of 23s. a week in accordance with the board's decision. He was examined by another board on 11th February, 1966, which found his condition unchanged and made a further provisional assessment of 20 per cent. extending up to 13th March, 1967, a little later date than my hon. Friend mentioned. He was awarded a further disablement pension, now at the rate of 27s. a week, on the basis of this decision, but as there was some doubt as to the correctness of the board's decision, his case was referred to the Medical Appeal Tribunal for consideration.
At their hearing on 5th April, 1966, when Mr. Armes was represented by an official of his union, the National Union of Agricultural Workers, the medical appeal tribunal decided that Mr. Armes was no longer suffering a loss of faculty from his accident and set aside the medical board's decision, substituting a final assessment of 5 per cent. for one month from 14th March, 1966. His disablement pension, therefore, ceased.
In giving their reasons for this decision, the medical appeal tribunal said:
All the movements of the ankle joint are full and free, and there is no wasting or swelling over foot or ankle. There is a hallux rigidus"—
or stiff big toe—
which is unconnected with the accident and has not been affected by it. There is no longer any assessable disability which is properly attributable to the relevant accident.
The Industrial Injuries Acts—and the Minister and I are limited by them—provide that where a person has sustained an accident at work, the question whether he has been, or is, suffering a loss of faculty—and, if so, the extent of his disablement—is decided by a medical board in the first instance, or, on appeal by the claimant or reference at the instance of the Minister, by the medical appeal tribunal. Both of these bodies are independent of the Ministry. Neither the Minister nor I have any power to influence or interfere with the decision.


That is how the 1946 Industrial Injuries Act laid it down.
The medical board consists of two general practitioners, and the medical appeal tribunal consists of a chairman who is a lawyer of standing, appointed by the Lord Chancellor and two medical members, who are invariably of consultant status, nominated by the Royal College of Physicians or Surgeons or by the medical faculties of the universities. By the Statute, the decision of the medical appeal tribunal on a case is final on the medical merits, the only further right of appeal being, with leave, to the Commissioner on a point of law. There is a limited power of review.
The decision of a medical board or medical appeal tribunal may be reviewed by a board or tribunal either if they are satisfied by fresh evidence that the original decision was given by reason of the non-disclosure or misrepresentation of a material fact or if they are satisfied that since the original decision has been given there has been unforeseen aggravation of the results of the relevant injury.
My hon. Friend has told us that he thinks the decision of the medical appeal tribunal in Mr. Armes's case is wrong and that Mr. Armes has been done an injustice. He says that Dr. Rochford, Mr. Armes's own doctor, is convinced that Mr. Armes's present condition results from his accident and that everyone in Winterton, where Mr. Armes lives, knows that he was completely fit and healthy before his accident.
I accept that my hon. Friend speaks from conviction on this, but as I have explained under the Act it is for the independent authorities to decide to what extent a claimant's condition results from an accident. While they may listen to any opinion which may be expressed they are not bound to accept it. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, it would be quite improper for me to comment on or seek to explain the merits of the tribunal's decision, even if I were competent to do so, but he will have noted that they do not say that Mr. Armes is not disabled. They say only that,
… there is no longer any assessable disability which is properly attributable to the accident.

My hon. Friend has suggested that he may now have some new evidence from Dr. Rochford. As I have said, it is possible for the decision of the medical appeal tribunal to be reviewed by a medical board or the medical appeal tribunal if they are satisfied by fresh evidence that the original decision was given by reason of the non-disclosure or misrepresentation of a material fact.
The question whether any particular document constitutes fresh evidence and also meets the other conditions for review on this ground is for the board or tribunal. If Mr. Armes wishes to seek review of the medical appeal tribunal's decision on the basis of new evidence, his local office will be pleased to assist him to complete the form of application. His case will then be referred to the medical board. I would only add that medicine is not an exact science, like economics and others and at times there are bound to be conflicting opinions among doctors.

Mr. John Horner: Can my hon. Friend say whether this case will be referred to the same medical board? Do I understand that the process is that the original medical board determines whether new facts have been adduced?

Mr. Davies: Not necessarily.

Mr. Horner: Will it be the same medical board which will review the case?

Mr. Davies: Not necessarily. I would explain briefly——

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman address the Chair? It will help the Press.

Mr. Davies: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
It is very difficult, in setting up some of these tribunals, when we are limited to nominations from the Royal College of Physicians or Surgeons, and we are also limited by the fact that these men, top consultants, are very busy. At different times, however, the tribunals may well consist of different consultants. They have no possible reason for being other than completely impartial in arriving at their decisions.
It was precisely because of the unsavoury situation under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts, that the present


industrial injuries scheme was introduced to replace it. Then, representatives of employers and employees vied with each other to produce medical opinion and medical witnesses to support their case in the hope of influencing lay courts, when, under the Industrial Injuries Acts, decisions were entrusted by Parliament to these expert and impartial bodies, which could, from their expert knowledge and experience, arrive at decisions on the question at issue.
With the Industrial Injuries Acts, we wanted to correct some of the errors of the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. I can therefore understand the disappointment and appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend has worked for his constituent. I understand the disappointment which may result when a constituent who sincerely believes that his disablement is a result of an accident at work and possibly has a medical opinion to support his belief finds that the medical appeal tribunal does not accept this view. I understand that, in those circumstances, it is natural to argue that there should be provision

for a further right of appeal on the medical merits or a rehearing by a different tribunal. But, in any form of adjudication there must be finality at some point. It is in the interests of claimants themselves that a truly authoritative and final decision should be reached as expeditiously as possible.
For this reason, it has always been the principle that the medical appeal tribunal should be staffed by medical men of the highest possible qualifications. But it is illusory to suppose that one could add even more highly qualified stage to this hierarchy or, even if we could, that it would necessarily give any greater satisfaction to claimants generally. Nevertheless, despite what I have said, I would repeat that, if my hon. Friend believes that there are new facts in this case, the local office and my Ministry would be pleased to look at this case again.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.